QueenZone discussion #1328992

Heavenite wrote: but does it really matter if you love the music? Probably not. Although I guess it is interesting to know more about the people who made the music you love.

breyes1984 wrote: examples please..!! I want to know.. thanks

alBHMfan wrote: ...but we've all been in fights where we smash bottles on people so...

brENsKi wrote:

Heavenite wrote: but does it really matter if you love the music? Probably not. Although I guess it is interesting to know more about the people who made the music you love.

unless it's Gary Glitter?

Wiley wrote: Well, he had gay sex. That should tell you something.

Mark_Glasgow wrote: Seriously, what kind of numbskull asks a question like this lol????

splicksplack wrote:

Wiley wrote: Well, he had gay sex. That should tell you something.

it tells me he had gay sex. What's your point?

-fatty- 2850 wrote: Extracts from the private & personal diaries of Freddie Mercury September 13th 1983 "Watched a programme on TV about an animal hospital that specialises in looking after sick hedgehogs. They were so adorable. Sadly one of the little hedgehogs had been attacked by a fox and was so badly injured that it had to be put to sleep. I cried for hours. Decided to send them a cheque for £10,000 to help look after the little souls." September 14th 1983 "Watched a programme on TV about World War 2 and the so called holocaust. More lies from the jewish propaganda machine."

Hi brENsKi, you touch on so many things I want to respond to: brENsKi said "Mr Sparrow, not wishing to knock the shine off your new perspective but perhaps you need to read/search out a bit more about freddie, and you'll probably end up with a view of a person somewhere between angel and devil. Totally agree. I'm just calling it as i saw it without knowing anything at all about the man.  I've subsequently read stuff that suggests an absolutely over the top ego was at work for quite awhile there.  I am open to it all as far as this guy goes.  You can't have the angel without the devil and I'd hate it if that was the case. brENski said "he was in complete denial about his own sexuality -until at least the late 70s - he was in his 30s by then." Although, naturally I defer to your experience, I disagree.  Obviously he was with Mary Austin while he was figuring it all out but I believe when he took the step away from her he was in no denial at all (and he was young - you don't just wake up one morning and say, oh wow, I'm queer. it can be a lengthy, confronting  and confusing process).  I think from that point, though, he knew and plunged in, albeit discretely. Discretion does not equate to denial.  I'm after decent material to read/watch - how did you come to your conclusion. As I said, I'm happy to learn. brENsKi said "please don't do this "cancer" thing. it doesn't work - until YOU have cancer and are dying from it (and i hope you never do) then you cannot say this. Sorry, my father died of cancer not too long ago so I guess his experience was in my mind both when I was watching the documentary and when I wrote that.  And also in the early days of AIDS, which I remember all too clearly, we called it gay cancer because it didn't really have a name then.  My point was Freddie was so vain, looking fantastic meant a lot to him and seeing himself looking so wasted must have been very hard to take yet he put himself through that last video. To me, that's courage and strength personified. Archie said "I think his wealth and the success of Queen happened because he was so at home in his own skin." brENsKi replied "you have no real proof of this." Well, I believe a crystal clear focus that harnesses all energy toward one outcome is key to success. I'm not sure you can achieve that, esp. as a performer, if you're scattered in your perception of who you are but whether it was true in this case, I agree, I have no proof but i like to think it had something to do with it and i like to think he was at home in his own skin (and I like to think Superman really existed) ;) Archie said "And then he was able to help out his friends financially and materially.  He seemed terribly generous to those close to him and very solicitous of their feelings and shielded them from different aspects of his life that could cause them upset.  brENsKi replied "he was sexually promiscuous...to extremes. that's about all you need know about his personal life." Again, sorry. I took this info from a documentary I saw and the book I'm reading - various interviews with people seemed to suggest it or say it outright.  As it was in the public domain, I thought it would be up for discussion.  Is there a list somewhere of what's allowed to be discussed and what isn't?  Maybe you could point me to it.  BTW just being a person is sexually promiscuous, it doesn't discount them being an excellent person. We don't live in the stone age anymore. And promiscuity was a big part of the gay experience of the '70s/early '80s. I do know what went on at The Anvil, dear ;) Thanks for you thoughtful reply. If you could recommend me a highly reputable book or documentary on the band, I would be really grateful.

Hey, Heavenite, thanks for the welcome.  I agree with what you say totally. He absolutely reveled in his OTT lifestyle, didn't he, and he  kind of did it all with a wink.  I love that about him. He was completely irreverent! The only thing he seemed to really take seriously was the music.  Everything else was there for his entertainment. APS.

brENsKi wrote: he was sexually promiscuous...to extremes. that's about all you need know about his personal life what??  how it's that something anyone needs to know about anyone's life!  O_o  I would tend to think things like that should be utterly private? How much more interesting would it be if all those biographers (and "friends") would have delved deeper into his formative years, into all the influences he absorbed since he was a quite young boy with all his travels, the cultures and religions he lived amidst, the music he listened to in his childhood and early youth and also when he was already famous (obviously it's much easier to write entire chapters devoted to his sexual appetite and his 190.029 lovers per minute than to mention lightly in one sentence "he was an Aretha Franklin fan", as it seems), or investigate and write about his art studies or his overall education, or his work ethics and his discipline and dedication, or the development of his vocal technique and range, and so many more things that would have helped paint a more throughly idea of the enormous artist and witty, kind, sassy person he was? All that stuff is given barely centimeters of print. And in any case it would be the stuff that matters. I can't care LESS about his supposedly insatiable sexual appetites. I certainly don't NEED to know about his promiscuity, which in any case should have never been written about, printed and SOLD by so-called "friends" who "sooo" much loved him. The realm of the private was repeatedly and utterly violated by his adorable, trustworthy friends and collaborators. Nice move...

Belladonic haze wrote: I still don't get what you're trying to say, brENsKi. Extremely active or promiscuous... still determining how good or mean a person is?