Cameron D Skirving 01.11.2012 20:44 |
I have just been watching the days of our lives doc. It is awesome. I continue to be amazed that the media continues to do anything to get a story, even if it is against morals. I for one have always been shocked at the way the media harrassed Freddie Mercury in the last years of his life, obsessively wanting to know if he was sick, had aids or whatever to the extent that they would put cameras up his toilet window to find out. I mean how inappropriate and immoral is that ? Nobody deserves to have that happen to them. I think Freddie did the right thing not wanting to tell anyone (apart from his closest friends and family plus the band as well). I can see he wouldn't want people to buy Queen's music out of sympathy. I am also inspired with how he just wanted to make music until he did go, and he would go the extra mile to do it too. What a remarkable story it was though. He then told the world, and then twenty four hours he passed away. its like he knew when his time was up. Is everyone with me on the fact that it is nobody's business if Freddie (or anyone for that matter is) was gravely ill, if he didn't want anyone to know . Do we have to know ? |
LAP 01.11.2012 22:53 |
Well said! |
LUI RISER 02.11.2012 01:46 |
Ofcourse |
Holly2003 02.11.2012 04:42 |
Yet another Aids topic. Great! |
the dude 1366 03.11.2012 14:48 |
It is safe to question whether he wanted that released. When someone is a day away from dying they may not even be in a state to be able to make such a decision. |
mooghead 03.11.2012 15:11 |
topical |
Heavenite 09.11.2012 07:55 |
the dude 1366 wrote: It is safe to question whether he wanted that released. When someone is a day away from dying they may not even be in a state to be able to make such a decision.Maybe it was pre-arranged then. I also seem to recall some questioning whether he was already dead when the statement was released. |
brENsKi 09.11.2012 10:25 |
this thread was dead before it was released...about 20 yrs ago none of it matters. i can't understand what merit there is in discussing Freddie & AIDS once - let alone 450,000 times...surely as fans this site is about the music itself, how it's made etc etc...because as much conjecture as anyone anywhere wants to add to these "pee-pee" threads...we'll never know...because NONE of us were close to anyone close to Freddie at that time. better diverting our energies and opinions into stuff that we might be able to comment with authority on...the music |
Holly2003 09.11.2012 10:45 |
Well said brenski. These aids threads, together with those about "fred's last photo" etc., are one step away from the sort of gutter journalism that Queen "fans" are supposed to despise. |
YAFF 09.11.2012 11:17 |
Agree 100% And here's the kicker for all those as-talented-as-freddie-mercury in the luckiest, more rare, delusional of dreams. Freddie Mercury continues to grow in appreciation while these fat, useless journalist perish to publish. Spoiler alert: Freddie won. The critics will die as jealous never-wases and Freddie will soon be awarded title of a god. Yeah he suffered for it but he went out better than most of us will. He saw death and he said: "fuck it I'm dying as a diva....bitches". There will never be another Freddie Mercury |
brENsKi 09.11.2012 11:38 |
last line ^^^^ "He saw death and he said: "fuck it I'm dying as a diva....bitches". = conjecture. you really have no idea if that was the case....so this makes you as guilty as any of these thread starters. you're adding to some kind of legend that never was. don't post things that are not fact. it just clutters the history with misrepresented crap |
GratefulFan 09.11.2012 12:23 |
I'm conflicted about the subject in general. While there is an obvious distasteful kind of rubbernecking aspect to these kinds of conversations many times, I don't know how you peel away Freddie's illness and death completely, even from the music, or why we'd even want to. There is a such a story there about the times, about what was then a near unbearable reality, his triumph in many ways over that terrible adversity, his choices before and throughout. I find those things interesting and relevant, though I understand completely that others might not. Certainly where sex and AIDS are not factors those general concepts are freely discussed in other biographical contexts for other people. I worry then that this kind of judgment does more harm than good if we're talking about the health of a discussion forum. Of course quality conversations and topics are absolutely key but if you get too narrow a band of sensibilities directing the traffic I think the forum suffers. In the last few months there has been a real pattern of new people or returning people rather brutally attacked for topics like posting 3rd party polls to vote on, the meaning of Bo Rhap, a book review(!) and other somewhat irrational reactions to things I can't think of right now. Most of those people didn't stay and at least some of that can probably be attributed to their experience or re-experience of Queenzone. I'm guilty too. Sometimes I can exacerbate the problem by arguing with the person arguing with the original poster further losing the topic that was of interest to somebody. And the other day I yelled at somebody for posting the Born Free mp3. I felt bad about that after and a little embarrassed because I wondered what conversation I might have stifled by setting the tone of that thread as the first person to reply. People are well aware of the issues, have already developed their own moral positions on unpurchased music and hardly need me directing their actions. I probably should have used my limited time to contribute to some other thread instead. |
Holly2003 09.11.2012 13:23 |
I appreciate what you're saying. I agree in general there's too much abuse directed at newcomers. I also agree that trying to stop conversations we don't particulary like should be avoided. However, there are exceptions: these discussions about Aids do nothing but go over the same old ground, with endless speculation that can't possibly lead anywhere good. Only Fred's most intimate family and friends might know when exactly he knew he had Aids (I'm referring to a recent thread here) and even if they were to reveal that precisely, what possible purpose could be served in knowing the exact moment? It's extremely voyeuristic and intrusive. There's even been discussions here about who Fred caught Aids from. How could that be of interest to anyone except the most fucked up weirdo? |
splicksplack 09.11.2012 18:23 |
There's certainly a discussion to be had about whether he could have helped the wider gay community by officially coming out (being a well-loved figure who was not only gay but that also had AIDS). 20+ years on? It's old news and attitudes have changed. I don't see any benefit in retreading old rows now. Let the old tart sleep peacefully. What happened in 1991 is not relevant anymore. |
GratefulFan 11.11.2012 15:54 |
Holly2003 wrote: However, there are exceptions: these discussions about Aids do nothing but go over the same old ground, with endless speculation that can't possibly lead anywhere good. Only Fred's most intimate family and friends might know when exactly he knew he had Aids (I'm referring to a recent thread here) and even if they were to reveal that precisely, what possible purpose could be served in knowing the exact moment? It's extremely voyeuristic and intrusive. There's even been discussions here about who Fred caught Aids from. How could that be of interest to anyone except the most fucked up weirdo?I understand completely how these kinds of topics hit your ears and those of the many people who would be in perfect agreement. I think I just don't have the same confidence that those are necessarily the limits of what conversations these kind of broadly critical threads are discouraging. There are good AIDS topics, or the potential for them at least. Maybe more significantly in combination with similar complaints they feel like a larger shot across the bow on conversations that stray very far from the music and it's technical aspects. That may be skewing in ways people don't intend, despite the surface appeal of it. There is a large but ultimately finite number of paths to new or deeper interest in Queen and their music, and Fred's illness and related issues are likely to continue to be an entry point given it's coverage in many documentaries and books and media etc. If we save Fred and ourselves from the indignities of some types of discussions but in the process lose people to future conversations or feed a larger loss of confidence in posting topics of interest for fear of the swift rejection of the group, it might be a matter of winning the battle and losing the war. Or it might not! I only know how I feel in the wake of these threads. I remain completely open to the possibility that you are brilliant and I am a creepy fucked up weirdo. :P |
matt z 15.11.2012 17:21 |
Grateful Fan... please use paragraphs. It was an interesting read, but had the consistency of a brick. Yep. Qz ppl, this will happen everytime a new fan comes to the flock. reiterating things isn't always bad. |
Ozz 15.11.2012 19:33 |
I understand why "fans" tend to be tired about the whole Freddie AIDS talk, but lets remember that in those years he was like the second BIG celebrity passing away because of AIDS which helped the worldwide awareness of this disease specially between young rock fans. So the topic is historically relevant whether we wanted or not. There's a lot of DENIAL between fans. Like all those fans that put Mary everywhere just trying to convince themselves that Freddie wasn't gay. |
queenUSA 16.11.2012 07:41 |
Happy holidays ahead everyone. Sorry to be off topic. |