tarkintheproud 21.08.2012 15:38 |
Hi, I read on brian's soapbox a while back, that he said he had written the bridge I believe, of ssor. I just listened to the song , didnt notice any real trademarks of any of them* in the chords (they seemed like mostly diatonic chord progressions) except there was a touch of bluesiness in the bridge, which might have been Brian's input maybe? Can anyone else with more knowledge confirm or deny Brian's claim? Thanks |
notimeforlosers 21.08.2012 15:46 |
Brian talks about it in the 'Days of our Lives' doc. Not very nice of him to claim having written something credited to Freddie, after his passing. |
tarkintheproud 21.08.2012 16:02 |
yeah it may have been the documentary i heard it in come to think of it. Anyway it seemed a bit weird that he only mentioned that mostly recently, as far as I'm aware of. The band did talk about ssor quite a bit as well given it was their first hit. |
brENsKi 21.08.2012 16:16 |
brian is becomeing more and more bitter and resentful in his older age 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? 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" |
Holly2003 21.08.2012 16:22 |
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"Not sure about that. Brian has always come across as a stubborn person, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I get the impression most of his songs ended up pretty much as he wanted them to be. I can see Roger needing a lot of Fred's help though, especially with lyrics. But judging by some of Roger's finished lyrics, Fred must've been on holiday quite a lot! |
brENsKi 21.08.2012 16:29 |
but you have to accept the point. that if freddie were alive he could argue brian's claim and maybe make a few of his own it's shoddy, shameful and downright c*ntish to do this of someone dead who can't answer back and it's not the first time either...didn't Brian fuel the whole "who wrote what" QZ debate when he started claiming credit for specific "written by queen" tracks? |
Holly2003 21.08.2012 16:49 |
It's certainly possible. Brian doesn't strike me as the type of person who would do that though. He's not Paul McCartney ... |
Missreclusive 21.08.2012 16:55 |
On that note. The lyrics book has a lot of Brians song lyrics written in Freddies hand...? I suppose Freddie would transpose lyrics in his hand so he could sing them, however, I find it very weird that none of what was written down for BoRhap is pictured in the book. I wondered why? Also, LOML (I think thats the one) has a huge picture of Brian accompanying the lyrics, instead of Freddie. I wondered about that one too. The lyrics book pictures all seem to be more about Brian and Roger, imho. Even though Freddie claimed he wasn't a lyricist or wasn't good at it, I think he may have contributed a lot more lyrics and music than they give him credit for. Of course, just speculation on my part. From everything I've read I begin to think that yes, Brian may have some jealousy towards Fred. Does it matter? no, not really. |
Missreclusive 21.08.2012 16:58 |
You older Queen fans surely would be better at guessing who most likely wrote what, both lyrics and music. |
MadTheSwine73 22.08.2012 00:01 |
Brian is Queen's Paul McCartney, while Freddie is Queen's John Lennon. |
tomchristie22 22.08.2012 01:22 |
How so? I can see what you mean, but Lennon was a complete douche (he said so himself). People only started making him out as some sort of peace prophet after his death. They probably all contributed somehow to each others songs at some point. It is a fairly low act to claim that without Freddie being there to deny or confirm it though. |
Dane 22.08.2012 02:37 |
I had the same kind of thing happen in my band. I would write the basic structure of a song with a couple of parts missing like a solo or a bridge. Then when you start to work on it with the rest of the band, some people will have great input and actually help you finish it. So in effect they are co-composers.. but because the main outlines of the song were mine, and I brought it to the band the songs are mostly credited to me. Which (as Brian stated) doesn't seem like that big a deal... until vast amounts of money will be made from the song. 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. |
1sharppencil 22.08.2012 05:52 |
"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! |
Fone Bone 22.08.2012 06:38 |
Brian is very jealous of Freddie's songwriting, and he has every reason to be. I can deal with "I single-handedly wrote TSMGO", "'39 is the lost masterpiece of ANATO", "Prophet's Song would have been succesful as Bo Rhap", and "WWRY and TYMD are the ultimate Queen songs", but that SSOR quote is pretty low. Without the Freddie SSOR / Killer Queen / Bo Rhap trifecta you would have had a completely different career, Doctor! Let's remember KYA did not friggin' chart! That said, Brian is awesome, naturally |
brENsKi 22.08.2012 08:54 |
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 |
tarkintheproud 22.08.2012 09:57 |
it just seemed a little weird to me that brian didnt bring this up till recently. I actually think he's generally very fair with regards to songwriting credits, but so was the rest of the band, and i wonder why brian's input was never mentioned by freddie when he talked about the song, as he also seemed pretty fair with regards to credit. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if brian did indeed write the bridge, however I couldn't honestly can't tell because it seemed like the chord progressions in the song were something any of the four could have come up. I'm far from a musical expert though, so wanted to see if anyone with more knowledge of music/brian or fred's trademarks could spot other details that support or deny brian's claim. |
brENsKi 22.08.2012 10:03 |
be fucking fantastic if a demo turns up one day with freddie playing the whole song on piano (inc bridge) |
Missreclusive 22.08.2012 10:16 |
Brian would have reason to grow more bitter as time went on. The biggest money making hits it seems were written by Freddie and John. |
waunakonor 22.08.2012 10:28 |
Geez, brENsKi, you're even more bitter than usual.
brENsKi wrote:You going to add that to your signature, which already contains a couple quotes from you?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 22.08.2012 10:41 |
think you're a bit muddled there....i have nothing to be "bitter" about...so i am not bitter freddie's family and friends on the other hand may do think about it....since Freddie's death, the song-count of "wholly written by Brian, or significant contribution by Brian...has steadily increased year on year...it's like he's saying "Freddie's dead...but i'm still alive...i'm still alive...i'm still alive...anyone? anyone? please" odd that you jump on my comments, when other have said similar things...don't see you jumping down their throats as regards the "finest work" line...that was a joke although my comments do appear acerbic at times, they're far from bitter....just direct....i've lost enough personally in the last four years to be really bitter...but you don't...you carry on...it's the only way |
cmsdrums 22.08.2012 11:18 |
brENsKi wrote:Excuse me, I think you'll find I wrote that. Oh, sorry, I've 'gone all Brian'!!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 22.08.2012 11:28 |
hehe Brian's doing a Mccartney but in years to come it'll be called a "come what May" |
Missreclusive 22.08.2012 11:34 |
LOL@cmsdrums and brENsKi |
AdamMethos 22.08.2012 12:28 |
Where is Roger in all of this? Has he ever said anything to support or contradict these "extra" songwriting credits? Brian seems to be a bit Dr. Evilish from all the comments I'm seeing. I remember a post that said WWRY and some of the questionable Queen collaborations were Brian's ideas that he got Roger involved in when before Roger seemed happy to do solo stuff and play small clubs? |
brENsKi 22.08.2012 13:08 |
Roger keeps his mouth shut...he's no fool let's face it...he's got plenty of residual royalities and he's not greedy |
waunakonor 22.08.2012 13:41 |
brENsKi, "Bitter" is defined, in the context I was using it in, as "characterized by intense antagonism and hostility." You were indeed being rather hostile toward Brian in your comment; perhaps he deserved some of it, but it sounded to me in that comment that you've really come to detest the guy. I even agree that some of the moves Brian has made recently in regards to Queen's old catalogue seems a bit shifty. I wasn't trying to attack you with my comment, I was just making a general remark. You say that others had said similar things as you, but really that's not true. Looking down the comments, the only person who actually attacked Brian himself directly is notimeforlosers, but his comment was brief and he didn't go on and on about how "shoddy, shameful, and downright c*ntish" Brian is. I'm not trying to jump down your throat; again, I was only making a general remark. As for the "finest work" line, I'm aware that was a joke, I was just playing along. Maybe we're looking at the word "bitter" different ways, but to me your comments come across as bitter, and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how you get off calling Brian "bitter." The problem with writing on the Internet is that it's difficult to tell what kind of tone a person is trying to use when saying something. I guess we both just misunderstood each other. |
Regor 22.08.2012 14:19 |
@Dane: I've experienced the same in a band I was in: someone had the first layout, maybe lyrics, and the basic chord structure, and everyone else added ideas. Not only concerning arrangements or parts of different instruments, also additional lyrics and bridges and stuff. But the one who started the song got the credit. Everyone was absolutely fine with that, and I still think it's not only okay, but the right way. Otherwise you'd be a solo artist with hired musicians to play along to your sheets. In general I think it's all okay. What happened with SSOR is the normal way it happens in bands (afaik), so no prob to talk about his contributions. And McCartney did the same, as did Freddie himself: he told the world in several interviews that he took over RGG and AKOM, which is perfectly right. And Brian always credits BoRhap completely and 100% to Freddie, even the headbanging-riff (which of course is Freddie's, but the casual fan/listener does not expect this), without being asked. And (apart from songwriting) he gives him the credit for what has been voted the best ever, ever performance in the history of rock music, Live Aid. I remember an interview where Bri talks about Freddie and says something like this: "He extends his range with every album we make. He's great. I love the guy; he's incredibly inspiring." Nuff said! |
brENsKi 22.08.2012 16:28 |
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 |
Mr Mercury 22.08.2012 16:43 |
brENsKi wrote:Yes but since 1sharppencil added a bit, does that mean its now a co-credit? lol :)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 |
una999 22.08.2012 16:47 |
maybe brian did write it leave the man alone. but one thing is for sure, freddie built the red special. |
waunakonor 22.08.2012 21:00 |
brENsKi wrote:Ok, thanks for clearing things up. You almost always seem to have reasonable points to make about the way Queen have handled their music over the past few decades, and I generally like the kind of stuff you post, so I've got nothing against you, you just seemed to be acting a bit odd. Again, thanks for making yourself a bit clearer.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 |
tomchristie22 22.08.2012 21:34 |
I don't really see what reason Brian has to be bitter about who gets more songwriting credit. He wrote many of Queen's best songs (even if they weren't the most successful). Either way, 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. |
GratefulFan 22.08.2012 21:36 |
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 22.08.2012 21:39 |
Fone Bone wrote: I can deal with "I single-handedly wrote TSMGO"That one's tricky.. If I remember correctly, it's generally accepted that Roger & John came up with the main keyboard bit, and Brian at least wrote the lyrics. Since they seemed to go with the person who wrote the lyrics being the credited songwriter, there could be some validity to him saying that he was the writer of TSMGO. |
Missreclusive 22.08.2012 22:09 |
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.What else would he do? An educated man, so of course he would act with as much grace and class as possible. Also, he is very soft spoken, he has a face that "appears" sympathetic and kind and evokes trust. Bitter? Not sure about that however, I do feel he has some internal issues with his lack of professional success since Freddies death. He will never have the adoration Freddie had. Of course my take is from vids and what I read. To me, there's far more covert goin on there than any of us may ever know. Roger just is what he is, I think less complex. I agree with brENsKi that Brian is talented and could have done more, he could very well be his own worst enemy. |
The Real Wizard 23.08.2012 07:39 |
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. |
thomasquinn 32989 23.08.2012 09:17 |
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 23.08.2012 09:26 |
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.Bravo. When I saw that part of the documentary, my first immediate thought was - "not surprising." And it carried the implication that this happened plenty more times over the band's career, and probably to every band member. Freddie rearranged Radio Ga Ga, but it's still credited to Roger Taylor. I highly doubt Brian was somehow trying to get the last word in edgewise while a dead man cannot defend himself. They argued in the studio from day one, and Brian's comment was an insight into the songwriting process. No more, no less. If Freddie were here to speak for himself, I'm sure he'd point out a Brian song where he had some input. One should walk away with the impression that this kind of thing regularly happened. The first instance just happened to be a Freddie song. |
brENsKi 23.08.2012 10:14 |
if Brian is the fair and objective person you think he is consider this: all his "claims" post 1991 have been about the significant contribution/songwriting (or both) on his part to songs either credited solely as written by one band member, or where something is credited to "queen" he's now claiming the lionshare now, your suggestion only works if the arrangement is two way - credit taken and given, and that'd be all well and good if he was open and honest enough to say "freddie wrote this bit of 'save me'" or "john worte this bit of 'it's late'" or "roger wrote the bridge of tie your mother down" *** ...he doesn't does he? wonder why? 'cause maybe he's so egocentric and has a Freddie Inferiority Complex that manifests itself by a constant need to underline his own importance to the point of one day "there's have been no success if it wasn't for me" ***hypotheical - for example purposes only |
Holly2003 23.08.2012 10:27 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: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.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). 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. |
Holly2003 23.08.2012 10:28 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Good point! If Brian was talking about the guitar solo then it makes perfect sense.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. |
liam 23.08.2012 10:57 |
I always assumed he was talking about the solo...the first middle eight has to be Freddie |
Another Roger (re) 23.08.2012 12:46 |
Get off Brians back! I think he is just telling the truth here. It was not unusual that members contributed on each others songs. They had this agreement from the start that the one who brought an idea to the table would also get the credits. I think this was why he used Seven Seas of Rhye as an example of this. It would be stupid of Brian to lie about these things as there were several witnesses. Often in a band the bassplayer will have input on the basslines, the guitarist on solos/riffs/arrangement and the drummer on the beats. In Queen though Freddie and Brian tended to get involved in the actual songwriting as well. Pherhaps Freddie was the one who got most involved in Rogers and Johns material. |
brENsKi 23.08.2012 16:28 |
but you avoid the key question... why hasnt he been open and honest enough to admit to the songs that "he wrote" that others contributed writing/ideas to? mr modest eh? |
Sebastian 23.08.2012 16:54 |
I've often suspected 'Jesus' and 'Mad the Swine' could have strong input from Brian. |
thomasquinn 32989 24.08.2012 05:09 |
Holly2003 wrote:thomasquinn 32989 wrote: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.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). Let's start with the main point. "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." - that is EXACTLY what I'm referring to. Nothing Brian has said about Queen in the last ten years or so is reliable. There are only two possible interpretations: all four members of Queen have been lying about pretty much everything since at least 1972, or Brian is allowing himself...creative liberties...with the band's history. He might be telling the truth, but you just can't automatically assume that any more, because he's liable to claim something entirely contradictory next month. As for Sun City - the main issue I was trying to point out is that, regardless of what Brian said, felt or thought, playing Sun City was *not* a compromise, it was *not* the 'least indecent option'. I included a reference to Artists Against Apartheid in my post to help illustrate the point that Sun City was, and was perceived as being, one of the *very worst* examples of apartheid South Africa. It was not really 'non-segregated', it was designed so that white customers could bring in black hookers. That sounds pretty callous, and that's exactly what it was. I don't know if you've ever been to South Africa, but I have family there. Even during apartheid, most *whites* (a majority of whom supported apartheid) regarded Sun City as a source of shame. I do not support a great number of choices Queen made, and the South American tour is one of them. However, the reason I don't comment about that here, is that Brian hasn't (yet) launched into a revisionist apologetic to explain how they were actually trying to topple the Videla-Viola-Lacoste-Galtieri junta by taking their money to play in Argentina. |
Holly2003 24.08.2012 05:59 |
Very quickly because I'm just about to go out: "Nothing Brian has said about Queen in the last ten years or so is reliable." He has made some errors about which songs were on which album etc. That's not quite the same as fabricating something like this. It's also not evidence of a pattern. RE: Sun City, you're repeating yourself, and I don't disagree that SC was a fudge, at best. But from his pov at the time it mightve made sense. You might accuse him of ignorance but not deceit. Re: Argentina, my comment wasn't directed at you, more at why SC is singled out. Once bands left Europe back then there were very few places they could play that didn't have a political system or regime that was "clean". So where do you draw the line? SA had a brutal racist regime in place, but was that as bad as Argentina? Why the huge campaign to stop artists playing SA but not Argentina? (Queen did get some shit from NME about this.) My guess is that in the West we must be more agitiated about racism than political abuses, but that hardly seems a tenable intellectual position. So Brian/Queen may have felt there wasn't a coherent and agreed position about where they could tour and why. I don't necessarily agree with that -- I believe they did it primarily for the cash -- but it does muddy the waters a bit. |
The Real Wizard 24.08.2012 10:49 |
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.. |
Mr.QueenFan 24.08.2012 20:28 |
Trying to deny Brian's claims is the same thing as trying to prove that Brian May is a liar, and i would never do that! |
dysan 25.08.2012 03:42 |
I figured he meant he slaved over the (amazing) solo - fair enough, but not a songwriting claim is it? Yes, I know he DID claim that :o) Also - the sun city debate. Oh lordy. |
thomasquinn 32989 25.08.2012 04:38 |
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.. The fact remains, it was well-known in Europe in 1984 that Sun City was about the lowest you could sink. I am not overstating matters when I say that Sun City was (rightly) known as little more than a combined casino/brothel. Even South Africans called it Sin City, and certainly didn't want their neighbours to find out if they had been on a trip there. When Queen played South Africa, that was a very poor decision. It really doesn't matter one bit if they played Cape Town or Sun City, and my main point remains: from 1984 until 2005 Brian never spoke out about this set of concerts, presumably (I hope) because he was ashamed of this dreadful call. Then, in 2005, he decided it was actually a moral decision to have played Sun City, and that is (one of the many thinks Brian has recently done that I find very) hypocritical. Even if Brian *believed* they were making a statement against apartheid, that only proves he was gullible: the South African authorities widely publicized the Queen-concerts with editorial statements suggesting, in one form or another, that Queen's appearances in South Africa prove that Europeans weren't supporting the cultural boycot of the apartheid regime instated by their leaders, and that the success of the concerts showed that their system wasn't untenable at all. But by all means, don't take my word for it. Most public libraries have internet portals to international periodicals. Look up some national South African newspapers from the weeks Queen played South Africa, and look at the comments they make. Queen allowed itself to be used for propaganda, either wittingly for money, or unwittingly out of naiveté, and nothing that Brian May says will change any of that. |
cmsdrums 25.08.2012 14:28 |
Wow - heavy stuff, but a point very well made ThomasQuinn |
AlbaNo1 26.08.2012 16:41 |
It seems to me that Queen still get plenty stick for playing Sun City in the general media, especially publications like the Guardian. Looking at some of the other artists that apparently played there such as Elton John, Frank Sinatra and also black arists like Tina Turner and Dionne Warwick how come they are not vilified to the same degree? They are clearly not the biggest name to have played there. |
thomasquinn 32989 27.08.2012 03:46 |
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. |
Holly2003 27.08.2012 06:06 |
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.Do you have any evidence that Brian didn't make this explanation to the Musicians Union, as he claimed? Has the MU publicly refuted his version of events, for example? |
thomasquinn 32989 27.08.2012 07:22 |
There is no evidence for- or against him having offered said explanation to the MU. However, Brian has never (before 2005) publicly given this explanation, in print or otherwise, which makes it suspect. That is not the same as *proof* that he is lying, but I think my statement, that Brian's word is not enough to count as proof of anything regarding Queen, is justified. |
Holly2003 27.08.2012 07:49 |
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 |
Mr.QueenFan 27.08.2012 09:00 |
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.This is only true in your head! You're being very hard towards Brian and you're just manipulating things and taking it out of context so it fits your theory. First of all you say: "Brian goes into this kind of revisionism quite a lot recently ("Paul Rodgers was Freddie's favorite singer..." here's a link of a Roger Taylor interview: link at around 3:36 you can hear Roger -very naturally i may add- stating that Freddie was a huge Paul Rodger's fan. Maybe he's lying too, and you and the other so called experts of Queenzone who clearly know Freddie better than his bandmates, because you've read all Freddies interviews and he never stated this, know better! Then you said, again about Brian: "American Idol-type shows are an insult to music / We're going to find a new singer through an American Idol-type show" When and where did Brian said this? You're just implying things. Queen never went into the process of finding a new singer through that kind of shows. They choose a singer who was found in that process but that isn't the same thing. That was what INXS did, and Brian stated that they were never gonna do that- meaning going through that process. That doesn't mean that they're gonna close their eyes and ears to the talent that is discovered through those types of shows. And clearly Adam Lambert is one hell of a talented singer- whether you people like it or not. Then you said, about Brian again: "the result being that his word alone just isn't good enough anymore" Really!?- Are we talking about the same person here? Again, hard words, and againg this is only true in your head. You're being very negative towards Brian and very manipulative. This isn't the kind of post i would expect to see on Queenzone, a forum for fans to discuss the great band and their music. After what Brian May has acomplished with his life and music, i think it's really sad to see people on Queenzone going through that hard work only to proove that Brian is a liar. Trying to find every little bit of discrepancy on interviews given by him throughout the years, taking it out of context, and so on, and so on... 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! |
dysan 27.08.2012 09:21 |
This thread is great. Well argued everyone. |
thomasquinn 32989 28.08.2012 06:43 |
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. |
thomasquinn 32989 28.08.2012 07:09 |
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: linkIn 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. |
Sebastian 28.08.2012 11:06 |
They could both be 'lies', one out of trying not to take sides, the other out of trying to rewrite history. |
Mr.QueenFan 28.08.2012 18:04 |
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.Read again! What i say is that "as long as there's people like me who supports them...", and supporting them doesn't necessarily means agreeing with or liking everything. It means that i support them no matter what because i want them to be happy doing whathever they love to do in music. I only know if i'm gonna like it or not, after or during the event. Not like many of you who even before the event is donne already know that it's crap. There's a difference here. I have expectations too, but i'm open to be surprised! It's a privilege to live in the same time as this geniuses and i'm gonna make the best out of it! And by the way, i'm not a teenager. This is a forum for Queen fans, and one of the things i'm pretty shure this forum isn't about, is for what you're trying to do. You're trying to deliberately deconstruct Brian May character in an open public forum for Queen fans. If you wanna do that, i'm pretty shure you can do it in other places. Pretty shure this isn't the place for that. You simply don't let go of South Africa. Why? Do you think this subject helps Queen in anything? If you're so passionate about this subject and the dictators of South America like you appear to be, there are other forums for you to do that. And there are other people for you to point fingers at. They're called ... politicians! The decision to tour South Africa was a career ending move. They only got their reputation back after live aid. I'me pretty shure they were ill advised by their staff. They probably heard more than a dozen people (at least) before the final decision. You should ask is, why after deliberation, someone thought this was a good career move and advised the band to go there? I'm pretty shure EMI at the time together with Queen Productions-not shure if it existed back then- did some meetings regarding this subject. Whoever adviced them, obviously had interest for them to go there. They kept Jim Beach after South Africa, so i'm shure they were happy with his intervention regarding this issue. But it's clear tat the band doesn't like to talk about this, so why don't you let it go? The poster "The Real Wizzard" makes perfect sense. He touches something that i never thought about. Freddie's voice loss might have been triggered by a stressfull situation. There are lot of questions that we will never have an answer to, but you choose to ignore everything and go after Brian to deconstruct is character. And this clearly isn't the place to do that! |
Sebastian 28.08.2012 20:22 |
To sum up some points and add my tuppence: * Brian coming up with the SSOR instrumental break: Possible. * Brian being whiney about not gaining enough credit: Obvious. * Brian's memory being unreliable in the last ten years: Actually, it was already quite inaccurate in the 70's! * TSMGO was a mixture of things: music (chords) by John & Roger, lyrics (+ melody, I reckon) by May & Mercury, arranged by May. * Jim Hutton (RIP) claimed he had the Bo Rhap manuscript, which may explain why it's not on the book. * Brian's handwriting was unintelligible, which is why Fred transcribed a lot of Brian's lyrics (e.g. The Prize). |
Sebastian 28.08.2012 20:22 |
Oh, and BTW, Paul was not Freddie's favourite singer. |
The Real Wizard 28.08.2012 22:33 |
Sebastian wrote: * Brian being whiney about not gaining enough credit: Obvious.... only to a few disgruntled Queen fans who seem to want to have a go at Brian at every available opportunity. To 99.99% of the people who watched that documentary, it was an insight into the creative process, with a very clear implication that it was the first of many times this occurred, and likely to every band member. Brian has clearly made his mistakes and doesn't have a perfect memory, but 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. 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. |
GratefulFan 29.08.2012 00:13 |
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.There is a difference between the claim of a political motivation for an action - which is what you seem to be trying to pin to Brian - and the embrace of an inevitable political impact of an action made in the service of other, perhaps even competing, ideals. In that 2005 response to the Guardian article the first lines that directly reference motivation were "We take a pride in our art, and we seek to advance ourselves, but we perceive that life is short, and we try to make our efforts count on the side of GOOD...". That was completely consistent with not being a political band, with wanting to play above most considerations, and wanting to play where the fans wanted them. This is precisely the kind of philosophy that would naturally and quite correctly at least question the deep reach of a cultural boycott that effectively swept up everybody in an an effort to change the political system at the top. It's easy to get in a rigid moralistic huff about their decision if you fail to stop and wonder just what the immediate impact was to real people. I think there is a chance that Brian was absolutely right. That if you talk only of the people that stood together, black and white, and shared a common experience as powerful and rare and transcendent as live music in that time and place that it probably did for many of those people fuei joy and hope and a sense of a larger world and a larger purpose seldom perceived in almost any other day in tense separation. I certainly believe Queen believed that. It's inconceivable to me that there would not have been a great deal of thought and hand wringing about the decision, though perhaps a lot of that was just getting around to feeling right about a decision they'd probably already unconsciously made anyway. The problem to me is not that they were necessarily wrong, but that the thinking was too small, too local, for the scope of the problem. In the big picture the truth probably is that it's more important for these unified actions not to crack, for individuals to submit their own preferences and beliefs to the larger cause in honour not only of the goal, but the sacrifices of other artists operating in the same difficult circumstances. In retrospect they probably should not have gone, but the fact that a generation of South Africans had a very different experience of youth than most of us had when they themselves were too young to effect change is not a small thing. The complexity of the world rarely lends itself perfectly to a single solution to any problem and people can never go wrong by at least questioning these kind of hive mind actions. They can take on a life and power of their own that outpaces their purpose and logical integrity. As was brought up, why SA and not Argentina for example? Mostly because a lot of people said so. Queen went off on their own and that is not always the wrong thing. Though it probably was in this case on balance, Brian's view of it as complicated and unclear is probably closest to the best approximation of the truth. |
tomchristie22 29.08.2012 02:33 |
It's nice that not everyone here's degenerating into a mindless Brian basher. |
Holly2003 29.08.2012 03:24 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Well it's good that we can dispose of your "he made it all up 20 years later" point. However, your remaining criticism only stands if we accept your very rigid and inflexible interpretation of Brian's soapbox comments. As I've tried to explain, it's possible to interpret Brian's comments in context of earlier remarks. As for what he said or didn't say to the Musicians Union, unless there's a transcript or someone else speaks out we'll never know but I find it very hard to believe he would say something as specific as that if he was lying: surely he would know someone would contradict him? And since that hasn't happened I fiond his comments plausible, if probably rose-tinted in hindsight. As I said earlier, I'd like to see a pattern of duplicity (not shown here) before I would believe he is, at heart, an immoral person. If anything it's the opposite. He has morals and tries to stick to them regardless of what everyone thinks. And it's that inflexibility and stubborness that often makes it hard to warm to him.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:linkIn 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 29.08.2012 03:56 |
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. |
Holly2003 29.08.2012 04:47 |
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.It depends what we're talking about. In this case, you are basically accusing him of fabricating info about Sun City, about a speech he gave to the Musicians Union and about his contribution to SSoR. I'm more inclined to believe he can be unreliable about which song was played on which night (for example) than about susbtantial matters such as this. At the same time, I'm inclined to think he's painting an overly-rosy picture. The SSoR thing isn't about memory though it's about lies. At least, that's the accusation being thrown around on this thread, that he's claiming credit for something he didn't do because Fred isn't around any more to contradict him. While I make take th piss out of Brian, I draw a line at something like this, at least until I see some compelling evidence, which is absent here. ps "historians" tend to recognise a multitude of perspectives rather than just one. They also tend to deal with what can be proved and avoid speculation without aforementioned evidence. Of course, the burden of proof is much lesss on an internet forum ... |
Sebastian 29.08.2012 08:32 |
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.Calling him out on his whining is not the same as wanting to have a go at him at every available opportunity. Life's not black and white. The Real Wizard wrote:To 99.99% of the people who watched that documentaryHard to prove, both as an exact and as an approximate figure. 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 occurredTBF, he did NOT at any point say or imply it was the *first*. There were most likely several instances pre-SSOR where such a thing happened (e.g. Liar). The Real Wizard wrote:and likely to every band member.Yet, for some reason, he conveniently highlights his own contributions to others' songs (e.g. stating he co-wrote IAHL's lyrics) but rarely, if ever, says something like '..... helped me on this song,' TSMGO aside; and even for that one, he went from 'there's a bit of all of us in it' in 1991 to 'I wrote it' in 2011. 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.Nobody's said that. To assume that every comment that is not 'Brian is God' is a direct attack to him is, indeed, a staggering display of arrogance... and stepfordism as well. 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.A Brian fan complains about the lack of positive comments to his idol. After so many years, he still whines and moans about comments that differ from 'Brian's perfect'. It says more about said May fan than it does about us, that's for sure. |
The Real Wizard 29.08.2012 12:29 |
Idol? I just feel there's a whole lot of demonizing Brian with an agenda behind it. If I defend Bono's right to exist outside of people who accuse him of political opportunism, does that mean I idolize Bono too? 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. |
GratefulFan 29.08.2012 12:49 |
When I left the house this morning I was immediately fascinated by an unusual configuration of starlings on a telephone line outside. It made me think of this discussion, and I guess all situations where power is arrayed against someone or something. I snapped a picture with my phone. Silly to post it maybe, and sillier to go on about it, but it paints a common picture in its way. Depending how one shifts one perspective the power in the South African situation lay with the South African government against it's people, with white South Africans against black South Africans, the United Nations and the world against South Africa, the Musician's Union against artists like Queen, the press against Queen, a thousand other lesser known stories probably too. Ostracism has been used as a social tool forever, because it usually works. It's almost always easier to be on the side where the power is gathered, for right or for wrong. Being the lonely bird could mean you're a bad bird, or a misled one, a stubborn one, or a strong and often courageous one, sometimes all at once. But as power shifts and grows it almost always eventually stops asking itself enough questions and just muscles along. I remain unsure about the meaning and lessons of Queen's history in South Africa, but I suspect that the power to shape and tell the story and set it a certain way in the public consciousness was not held in the Queen camp. Did those aligned to condemn Queen so harshly ask themselves enough questions? I don't know. Anyway, my birds: link |
Missreclusive 29.08.2012 13:36 |
Alot has been stated in this thread! My understanding with regard to Sun City isn't much clearer than it was before this thread. Thanks to Sebastian for the bit about Hutton possibly having the Bo Rhap manuscript. I know I watched a youtube with Brian on the making of the song and he did have some of Freddies Bo Rhap writing in his hand as the camera zoomed in on it, it's in the vid. I nearly knew it would be included in the lyrics book as the song is one of the most well known/loved. Also, yes, probably Brians handwriting is tough to read answering why a lot of his songs are in Freddies hand. Still doesn't answer the question of why lack of Freddie pics accompanying Freddie songs in the lyrics book. LOML clearly should have had Freddie big and bold on the page instead of Brian! Well sure, it's a "petty" argument but just something I noticed throughout the book and questioned. Small small thing but, it would possibly point to some jealousy or whatever from Brian to Freddie. There is that interview where Freddie "jokingly" says he and Brian couldn't be in the same room 5 minutes without a fight. Freddie continues and says "I haven't hit him yet!" then adds " there's still time!" Then interviewer asks him about Brians songs and Freddie says he didn't like ANY of them! Then of course Freddie laughs again and indicates he's joking. Was he?? lol I know in my life I've seen a lot of truth come out in a joking manner. Yes yes, don't even reply with them being like brothers. In my petty little mind I can still totally see that there could be some resentment for Freddies brilliance with music both written and vocally. Would make sense to me. And by the way, I'm not slinging mud at Brian. I love his talent. I really don't care much except for the sake of correct history, for which I would like to know and then again there is MUCH that we may never know. |
Sebastian 29.08.2012 15:45 |
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.Exactly, which is why assuming people who don't bow to Brian and have a stepford attitude towards him or what he does/did are automatically trying to demonise him, says more about the person making the assumption than it does about the person pointing out Brian's moaning. |
The Real Wizard 30.08.2012 13:33 |
Your inverting language tactic isn't working. It's no more than an attempt to stifle debate, to make it appear as if your stance is equally legitimate to others' when it isn't. You are attempting to paint everyone with a binary brush, that one must either pick Brian May apart or worship him. This is a dichotomy that exists only in your mind. There is a middle ground of neutrality. This has nothing to do with bowing to Brian. Making assumptions or passing judgement based on things he has said in the past is a conscious choice you are choosing to make. On the other hand, simply listening to new information he has to offer is not a choice or a stance. It's like calling abstinence a sex position. It's not a position. It's a lack of position. 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." People do not need to somehow justify why they listen open-mindedly when others talk. This is not somehow inversely equal to your lack of belief and endless scrutiny. 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. |
Sebastian 30.08.2012 18:50 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Your inverting language tactic isn't working.It's neither inverting language nor is a tactic. The Real Wizard wrote:It's no more than an attempt to stifle debateIt's not to stifle debate, but to make you face your own arguments. The Real Wizard wrote:to make it appear as if your stance is equally legitimate to others' when it isn't.Actually, it is. I'm no more than you, but I'm no less than you either. Same amongst any two people. 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.No, and that's exactly my point: not worshipping him is NOT the same as having an agenda to demonise him. Not demonising him, likewise, is not the same as worshipping him. The Real Wizard wrote:This is a dichotomy that exists only in your mind.So now you think you can read my mind? If so, then you're the one with the arrogance problem. The Real Wizard wrote:There is a middle ground of neutrality.Exactly: not worshipping him is NOT the same as having an agenda to demonise him. Not demonising him, likewise, is not the same as worshipping him. Claiming he's been whiney is not the same as demonising him, either. 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.Likewise, making assumptions or passing judgement on me based on things I've written on an on-line forum 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."If you disagree with my view of Brian as a person who whines a lot about not being given enough credit, that's your choice (and your opinion is as valid as mine, not more, not less). But don't confuse 'Brian whines a lot about not being given enough credit' with 'Brian fabricates stories to be given more credit'. I clearly stated that Brian contributing to SSOR (and other songs credited to Freddie) is entirely possible and likely, which has nothing to do with my perception of Brian as whiney. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. The Real Wizard wrote:People do not need to somehow justify why they listen open-mindedly when others talk.Exactly. You could try listening/reading with an open mind and realising that calling Brian 'whiney' is not the same as demonising him; that calling Brian's memory 'less than perfect' is not the same as doubting 100% of what he says. 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.The world is not a greyscale either. There are millions of colours, and just because you (and I) can't see the FIR or the UV, it doesn't mean they don't exist. |
The Real Wizard 30.08.2012 23:53 |
My brain just exploded.. |
Ozz 31.08.2012 01:53 |
Great birds shot GratefulFan. And The thread seems to be full of bird poop.. too by either side. The only member of Queen always committed to politic statements is Roger. So im sure they didn't stood publicly as band against apartheid in that time Queen made 3 mistakes in their career: Trident, Hot Space and Sun City. But we should not be here pointing mistakes, because whinny, revisionist and all, Brian May as musician and person contributing in Queen made us Fans, and made us enjoy this... and we often went too far from fair criticism to witch hunt. and you know what, let the old mate rest in his well deserved money once for all. |
thomasquinn 32989 31.08.2012 04:13 |
@Ozz: The thing is, many people have trouble separating Brian May - the musician from Brian May - the person. I absolutely love Brian May the musician, but I get the increasing impression that I want as little to do as possible with Brian May the person. I think that if you really respect Queen, that also means accepting and naming the many flaws that were involved in its history. As usual, a certain poster attempts to take my Sun City-remarks out of context to 'prove' that I'm some kind of propagandist, but that is not how I see it. Queen were, whether you like it or not, a phenomenon that made its mark on the whole world for at least two decades (the '70s and '80s). That means the history of this band is too important to be left to obvious partisans, like the band's members. This also involves being critical of them sometimes, and I'm afraid I just can't come to any other conclusion than saying that Brian is making so many contradictory statements these last few years, that any remark he makes on Queen's history requires additional sources to be believed. That is not a witch hunt - it is responsible hermeneutic inquiry. |
Sebastian 31.08.2012 12:13 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:That is not a witch hunt - it is responsible hermeneutic inquiry.Exactly. Brian's a human being, like any of us. Like any of us, he's got many 'good', 'bad' and 'ambiguous' features, and they can and do co-exist. He's an extraordinary musician, but that doesn't mean he can't be and isn't whiney about the alleged lack of credit given to him. Being whiney, likewise, doesn't make him any less excellent as a composer, guitarist, singer, producer, etc. |
Ozz 01.09.2012 06:16 |
It's a useless discussion that brings no benefit . Every fan decodes the message according to his own motivations and prejudices. When we whine publicly about him, we just bitter ourselves about things that we cannot change. For example, Im pretty sure that John Deacon exiled himself from Queen because he only had support from Freddie to his musical input in the band, so without him Queen is just Brian & Rogers garage band (like Hetfield / Ulrich) where he wouldn't exist as an active member , but why should i think too much about that if that will make me see in a bitter way every soapbox message from Brian... Its useless... |
Sebastian 01.09.2012 06:21 |
Ozz wrote:It's a useless discussion that brings no benefit .In YOUR opinion. But in other people's opinion (including mine), there may be some good things coming out of it. Simple solution: those who like it can keep reading, you can simply use your time on something else. Ozz wrote:When we whine publicly about him, we just bitter ourselves about things that we cannot change.Not necessarily. Saying he's whiney is not whining (sometime it is, indeed). That doesn't make anybody bitter. This is a discussion about a topic we're interested in. Those who aren't can leave whenever they want. 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...Those things aren't necessarily co-related. Ozz wrote:Its useless...Then leave. |
Ozz 01.09.2012 06:50 |
Instead of suggesting me to leave, maybe you should follow your same advice since you don't like what you read in my opinion. right? But.... Since it's an open discussion about a topic that is interesting for all of us, those were my two cents. Sometimes we use too much time in talking about Queen members personal attitudes towards their music releases (which is our focus of interest) but when we do, we end being like a tabloid. And don't take things personally. in fact i usually agree with 99% of your posts. Really. With all the upcoming releases i would expect more discussion about the possibilities than the awkward traits of an old human being which is also someone who we admire |
Sebastian 01.09.2012 08:37 |
I'm not taking it personally. I just think this forum (and most others for that matter) allows many different discussions, out of which any of us is free to visit and participate on the ones we find interesting. What I disagree with is going to a topic you don't like (or where you don't like the way it's been discussed) to tell people not to discuss it, just because you think it's a waste of time. |
brENsKi 01.09.2012 10:18 |
agreed. you don't like it, then you can say so and then don't discuss it. but don't try and tell others what they can discuss fact is - since freddie died, brian has increased his contribution to queen songwriting (effectively rewriting the history of the band) while at the same time giving no credit whatsoever for any other band member contributing to writing any of his songs.... almost as if he's making himself out to be a lone genius who wrote all his stuff alone, and went round helping the others shape their songs into somehting worthwile |
Sebastian 01.09.2012 15:37 |
Doesn't explain why he's been unable to write a million-selling hit for over twenty years. |
brENsKi 01.09.2012 16:30 |
no freddie = no million selling hit whatever talent that the rest of the band had...freddie was the one who had equal amount of talent and charisma and it's the freddie factor that was missing from everythign brian did post 1991....no vocals, no quality control, no incredible keyboard, no quirkiness, no melodies that only freddie could cunjure.... want an example? just watched that xfactor tonight...and that guy who did "whole lotta love" - brilliant impersonation...but he's still not robert plant so brian can stick whoever the fuck he likes in front of the mic stand...but it ain't freddie, so it doesn't work...his best option is to bite the bullet, and go solo |
tomchristie22 01.09.2012 19:36 |
Remember how Long Away failed dismally as a single? And most Queen fans would agree that it's one of Queen's great songs. It's just that they don't make much money as Queen without Freddie. |
qz08927 01.09.2012 21:16 |
This thread is shit. But the seven seas lyric interests me. It is a great audacious lyric, not sung from the safety of a movie character like prnces of the universe for example , but still a character none the less, but sing as Freddie Mercury the character in role in the world of his myth. Brian>>>>>>>>>Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive |
qz08927 01.09.2012 21:21 |
The lyric of seven seas was based upon a rhyme/poem/story that Freddie and his sister invented, a mythical place of the imgination that has given birth to other myths in the real life. Fear me you lords and lady preachers I descend upon your Earth from the skies I command your very souls you unbelievers Bring before me what is mine The seven seas of Rhye Can you hear me you peers and privy counsellors I stand before you naked to the eyes I will destroy any man who dares abuse my trust I swear that you'll be mine The seven seas of Rhye Sister - I live and lie for you Mister - do and I'll die You are mine I possess you I belong to you forever-ever-ever-aah Storm the master-marathon I'll fly through By flash and thunder-fire and I'll survive - I'll survive - I'll survive I'll survive - I'll survive - I'll survive Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive The name Marathon comes from the legend of Pheidippides, a Greek messenger. The legend states that he was sent from the battlefield of Marathon to Athens to announce that the Persians had been defeated in the Battle of Marathon (in which he had just fought),[4] which took place in August or September, 490 BC.[5] It is said that he ran the entire distance without stopping and burst into the assembly, exclaiming "????µe?’ (nikomen)", (We have won), before collapsing and dying.[6] Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive We used to play All the games Where no one's the winner We used to laugh And make lies Some live on better Then I'll get you Be gone with you - you shod and shady senators Give out the good, leave out the bad evil cries I challenge the mighty Titan and his troubadours And with a smile I'll take you to the seven seas of Rhye - oh I do like to be beside the seaside - oh I do like to be beside the sea - where the brass band plays - tiddly om pom pom - oh I do like to be beside the seaside - oh I do like to be beside the sea that Freddie and his sister invented Sister - I live and lie for you Mister - do and I'll die I'll survive - I'll survive - I'll survive Then I'll defy the laws of nature and come out alive Little sister by Jean Philip Verdin Jeremy Kapone Brother and Sister We used to say That we were Brother and sister We used to think Nothing, was ever bitter Today,I break,my promises To stay out of the emptiness Today let's make our promises For tomorrow We used to play All the games Where no one's the winner We used to laugh And with a smile I'll take you to the seven seas of Rhye - oh I do like to be beside the seaside And make lies Some live on better SOME LIVE ON BETTER Today,I break,my promises To stay out of the emptiness Today let's make our promises For tomorrow La lalalalala La lalalalala La lalalalala Lalalalala (...) We used to swear That we were Brother and sister We always knew That you Would take me out there And with a smile I'll take you to the seven seas of Rhye - oh I do like to be beside the seaside BEALEARIC GREEK MED SEA Today,I break,my promises To stay out of the emptiness Today let's make our promises For tomorrow La lalalalala La lalalalala La lalalalala Lalalalala (...) May the Strange synchronicities continue. Myth is the language Legends are communicated by and so, i listen. |
AdamMethos 01.09.2012 23:55 |
Is the random insertion of "Jeremy Kapone" in that post supposed to be some kind of subliminal messaging? ;-) |
qz08927 02.09.2012 00:46 |
AdamMethos wrote: Is the random insertion of "Jeremy Kapone" in that post supposed to be some kind of subliminal messaging? ;-)Not random, he is connected to that song. Jeremy Kapone - Brother and Sister (Lyric + Clip) (Jean Philippe Verdin - Little Sister) link |
thomasquinn 32989 02.09.2012 10:10 |
Yes, we already know you suck, Jeremy. |
qz08927 02.09.2012 20:23 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yes, we already know you suck, Jeremy.I do not such thing. |
qz08927 02.09.2012 20:23 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yes, we already know you suck, Jeremy.I do not such thing. |
thomasquinn 32989 03.09.2012 04:19 |
Have you watched your own video? You do suck. The way you are trying to advertise yourself with your ridiculous insertions of your own name into your idiotic Borat-threads, and the way you are spamming these boards with incoherent, poorly written nonsense, Brian-worshipping bordering on religious fanaticism and completely irrelevant crappy videos is simply pathetic. The only comfort we have is that you are spamming so much you're bound to be banned any day now. |
qz08927 04.09.2012 03:37 |
spamming>? think not, if i am spamming you have spammed far more than me, you have how many spam posts, 4683? |
thomasquinn 32989 04.09.2012 04:10 |
I have 4600+ posts in 7 years, none of which can be considered spamming (not even by Microwave, who would probably call 50% of them "damn unpatriotic", though). You have 120 in a number of days, with a huge string of new topics, all with titles in caps. Plus, every single one of your posts is filled with abuse. You are a spammer, and you will get banned soon. |
Sebastian 04.09.2012 17:57 |
Playing the 'post count' card is really pathetic IMO. Great qz08927, you've outdone yourself again. |
Missreclusive 04.09.2012 18:32 |
How many names does this guy have? |
Sebastian 11.08.2013 18:13 |
I miss those times... |