In light of renewed interest and infighting due to events surrounding the DFR debacle, I'd like to make serious a suggestion I originally half-jokingly made not too long ago, and that is to gather up a few Queenzoners to participate in a "live" (albeit recorded and prepared before actual YouTube release) Skype debate to discuss various issues and controversies currently pitting the fans against the collectors as well as the team in charge of managing the Queen brand and archiving.
This debate would be jointly co-hosted by myself, Gregsynth and TSS_Killer.
While actual debate points will have to be discussed and set in stone, I would like to extend very sincere open invitations to the following individuals to join us for the debate to start off with:
GratefulFan
GT
John S. Stuart
Queen Archivist (aka GB)
The Real Wizard
I will be more than happy to discuss the responses via PM if desired. Setting the date and time will be definitely discussed privately.
And if anyone would like to throw in question submissions to use in our talking points, that would be appreciated. But please keep it relevant to the debate.
Let's get the ball rolling, OK? :-)
How about you go over why people with a lot of rare stuff don't just release what they have. Because they made some sort of agreement with someone at some time not to release the stuff? Who the hell cares; if DRF isn't dead yet, what's the worst that could happen? You feeling good because you made some Queen fans' days a bit better by getting to hear some rarities?
And, on a related note, why don't you touch on why some Queen fans feel superior to other ones. That would be fun.
Honestly, I don't think this discussion will get anyone anywhere, seeing as how the talking on here hasn't. It will probably be a waste of time, but if it does happen, I hope GratefulFan kicks some ass.
Certainly, we can certainly touch upon those topics and give personal insights & interpretations into those matters. That's what a debate is for really, even if some issues don't end up getting fully resolved in the end.
My aim isn't to resolve all of these issues immediately, really, given the stubborn nature of what we can already see here that I can see preventing a full resolution that works for all sides coming to light anytime soon. What my aim is instead is to butt heads, explore things really in-depth and try to find reasoning behind all of these touchy matters that could potentially create bridges to help overcome clashing viewpoints, as well as find ways to explain in better ways to people on both sides of the fence what it is that infuriates each other and TRY to build more understanding.
There COULD always be something that comes out of talking virtually 'in person' rather than in a text-based environment, you never know, considering that too there is also a huge lack of tone in the latter which IMO is really important for conversation. But that's my own view.
inu-liger wrote:
While actual debate points will have to be discussed and set in stone, I would like to extend very sincere open invitations to the following individuals to join us for the debate to start off with:
GratefulFan
GT
John S. Stuart
Queen Archivist (aka GB)
The Real Wizard
Not quite balanced enough. Do you think you get Jim Beach, Brian May, Roger Taylor, a coughing badger, Richard Dawkins and Satan?
Really though while I fully respect and appreciate the intent I agree with Waunakonor. Nothing productive would likely result not least because we're talking around each other and not even about the same thing. That's unlikely to change with a different format.
Maybe it would be a good idea to start by finally asking if Brian approves with you lot trading all Queen material he has never wanted out?
The whole discussion would be nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" to polish the image of the Fanthology (and tar the image of David Fuller) unless you establish the morality of ALL the players included.
I prefer listening to music than discussing it, as music cannot be described, bad acting is similar in that it is difficult to find words to explain just how serious dramatic acting differs from pantomime caricature comedy in style and depth.This is the serious dilemma we find in the talents of sacha baron Cohen vs a serious actor capable of believably portraying all facets of Freddie's personality, wether it be his natural humour or his serious musicianship mind, his romantic and personal relationships, or his seriously unrivalled stage craft and the acting facial expressiveness which he used when singing his powerful songs of various emotional colours.
All these things are very important to the artistic credibility of the portrayal of him in any movie portrayal of his life and story and require someone who is a competent actor to realise such a massive feat, if the movie is to be as fittingly excellent an archival record as he was a performer and musician and man.
He deserves no less such a careful and considered memorial .
And as you can see my mission and concern is for and about Freddie and not about some egotistical king of the hill contest in regards to collecting bad recordings of Queen which never passed quality control and Therefore failed Freddie's standards of excellence.
Besides you are all too unintelligent to debate anything with.
Queen fan wrote:
I prefer listening to music than discussing it, as music cannot be described, bad acting is similar in that it is difficult to find words to explain just how serious dramatic acting differs from pantomime caricature comedy in style and depth.This is the serious dilemma we find in the talents of sacha baron Cohen vs a serious actor capable of believably portraying all facets of Freddie's personality, wether it be his natural humour or his serious musicianship mind, his romantic and personal relationships, or his seriously unrivalled stage craft and the acting facial expressiveness which he used when singing his powerful songs of various emotional colours.
All these things are very important to the artistic credibility of the portrayal of him in any movie portrayal of his life and story and require someone who is a competent actor to realise such a massive feat, if the movie is to be as fittingly excellent an archival record as he was a performer and musician and man.
He deserves no less such a careful and considered memorial .
And as you can see my mission and concern is for and about Freddie and not about some egotistical king of the hill contest in regards to collecting bad recordings of Queen which never passed quality control and Therefore failed Freddie's standards of excellence.
Besides you are all too unintelligent to debate anything with.
Thank you so much for the invitation, and if I thought it could be educational, informative or entertaining, I would love to take part.
The sad thing is that so many people in here are closed-minded and prejudiced before we begain, and all that would happen is the polarisation of opinions rather than the free-flow of ideas which you intend.
It's a shame really that some people wish to focus off topic and reduce such attempts to bear baiting; but no matter how much I believe (or know) about my expertise; there will always be someone out to draw blood, so I am sorry, but it's not my blood which is going to be on the menu - so I politely decline the request and hope you can (perhaps not agree with me) appreciate why.
Thanks;
John
Hmm, although still waiting for GT and GB to respond, all declining so far. Disappointing and kind of a shame, but I'm not surprised. I guess it was too much to hope for some people to set aside some differences for just an hour or two out of their lifetime to participate in what could have been an interesting conversation :)