| slithybill 01.06.2013 11:06 |
link "Life on Two Legs: Setting the record straight on Queen, The Beatles, Elton and Bowie and the ultimate rock studio, Trident. By Norman J. Sheffield Foreward by Sir Paul McCartney." Due out in July. I look forward to reading his side of the story. |
| mooghead 01.06.2013 11:12 |
Could be good.... |
| cmsdrums 01.06.2013 13:48 |
If McCartney has written a forward then he clearly doesn't feel ripped off as some others did |
| Hangman_96 01.06.2013 14:00 |
I guess I'm only interested in the Death On Two Legs part. |
| mooghead 01.06.2013 14:17 |
And we only know one side of the story.... |
| Hangman_96 01.06.2013 14:22 |
mooghead wrote: And we only know one side of the story....And we're about to discover the other side, aren't we? |
| dysan 01.06.2013 14:47 |
I'll be getting this. |
| mooghead 01.06.2013 15:44 |
Lostman wrote:Two sides......mooghead wrote: And we only know one side of the story....And we're about to discover the other side, aren't we? |
| C_Matt 01.06.2013 16:56 |
I'm interested too. |
| tomchristie22 01.06.2013 22:20 |
Didn't know he was still alive. Pretty interested to hear the other side of things, as others have said |
| Planetgurl 02.06.2013 09:38 |
Great title - very astute! No messing about there! This is going to be an interesting read... Obviously his chance to tell it from Trident's perspective. |
| The Nosuch Disco 02.06.2013 10:08 |
does seem interested, but the price is a little steep! |
| mooghead 02.06.2013 15:55 |
The price is steep but we are Queen fans so it only needs one of us to pay for it then share it with everyone for nothing. Its the Queen fan way!! (if you don't share for free you are a thieving scumbag bastard) |
| Thistle 02.06.2013 16:41 |
^ is that you volunteering, then? |
| mooghead 02.06.2013 16:54 |
Nope.. someone else should do it... I am sitting here waiting for free stuff.... ;-) |
| Thistle 02.06.2013 16:56 |
LOL |
| Michael 02.06.2013 17:11 |
Great post! Thank you. |
| MartynTS 02.06.2013 18:19 |
I'd like to read it, but knowing myself I probably won't. As others have said, might be interesting to read the other side of the story. I like the title ^^ |
| YourValentine 03.06.2013 02:00 |
His side of the story is pretty obvious imo: they put a lot of money into producing and advertising an unknown group and when the revenues started coming in the ungrateful jerks wanted the money all for themselves instead of paying up to the production company...there are always two sides of the story. |
| IanR 03.06.2013 03:10 |
I'll buy it if it comes out on the Kindle. |
| FriedChicken 03.06.2013 09:35 |
mooghead wrote: The price is steep but we are Queen fans so it only needs one of us to pay for it then share it with everyone for nothing. Its the Queen fan way!! (if you don't share for free you are a thieving scumbag bastard)Or maybe David Fuller could steal it and share it with us? |
| Fireplace 03.06.2013 15:58 |
Thank you for mentioning that. I was afraid this topic might actually turn into something worth reading, but fortunately the Phantomology-police never sleeps. |
| slithybill 03.06.2013 16:42 |
I wonder if Sheffield held onto any Queen mementos from his time with them. He could have acetates and/or raw tapes from their studio time. But a lot of that stuff could've gotten lost or destroyed back when they sold the studios. |
| tomchristie22 04.06.2013 07:50 |
Fireplace wrote: Thank you for mentioning that. I was afraid this topic might actually turn into something worth reading, but fortunately the Phantomology-police never sleeps.I know! God forbid we have threads where the fanthology arguments don't show up |
| rocknrolllover 04.06.2013 12:24 |
I was hoping that this scum has long licks heel Freddie |
| mooghead 04.06.2013 13:19 |
rocknrolllover wrote: I was hoping that this scum has long licks heel FreddieI have never laughed so much.. I have no idea what it means but it is hilarious.... |
| rocknrolllover 04.06.2013 13:29 |
mooghead wrote:not my fault you're a clownrocknrolllover wrote: I was hoping that this scum has long licks heel FreddieI have never laughed so much.. I have no idea what it means but it is hilarious.... |
| rocknrolllover 9741 05.06.2013 22:16 |
I should talk |
| shannaschaffer 06.06.2013 12:22 |
^^ Ha ha |
| waunakonor 06.06.2013 16:12 |
^^ Ha ha indeed. |
| inu-liger 06.06.2013 19:49 |
^^ LOL, owned |
| Hangman_96 08.06.2013 14:51 |
^ what they said. |
| tomchristie22 09.06.2013 20:05 |
I hope i'm not missing something obvious here, but why do there appear to be two rocknrolllovers posting under the same username with different post counts? |
| dysan 07.07.2013 12:23 |
Preview available. Some typos, of course, but looks like it will be a good read: link |
| Bad Seed 07.07.2013 14:43 |
link |
| Planetgurl 21.07.2013 07:36 |
First press: link |
| Hangman_96 21.07.2013 18:51 |
tomchristie22 wrote: I hope i'm not missing something obvious here, but why do there appear to be two rocknrolllovers posting under the same username with different post counts?It's really something of a mystery. I could say that someone set up an account with the same username and put the same profile picture but I would be wrong in fact, because the second account was set up on the same day as Anton's main account. Hence I get confused. It could be a bug of QZ... unless you can set up an account on this forum using someone's username which will result in having their date of registration and some other basic info as yours. |
| rocknrolllover 22.07.2013 02:19 |
Inu linger under my username because he hates meso much |
| inu-liger 22.07.2013 04:14 |
Your lies have about as much merit as Mitt Zombie, er, I mean Romlie, um... Anyways, that you can't even prove your accusation set aside, you're coming down for a review soon enough. If I were you, I'd get my virtual suitcase on the ready just in case ;-) |
| inu-liger 22.07.2013 04:21 |
Lostman wrote:Just one more reason this board should switch out its bulletin board system for something much more modern and reliable. I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to copycat a username was accidentally enabled during some "bug fix", that certainly was not possible a very long time ago.tomchristie22 wrote: I hope i'm not missing something obvious here, but why do there appear to be two rocknrolllovers posting under the same username with different post counts?It's really something of a mystery. I could say that someone set up an account with the same username and put the same profile picture but I would be wrong in fact, because the second account was set up on the same day as Anton's main account. Hence I get confused. It could be a bug of QZ... unless you can set up an account on this forum using someone's username which will result in having their date of registration and some other basic info as yours. I'd be concerned about privacy invasions at this rate if this board doesn't get all it's holes plugged up OR replaced... |
| dysan 24.07.2013 06:45 |
He's on BBC Radio London today. I will upload it later if anyone wants. |
| inu-liger 25.07.2013 04:46 |
OK, so it just hit me that, never mind some other parts of that excerpt that was posted reeks of potential revisionism, I have an extremely hard time believing this bit:
"I did see him once, in the years following our fallout, in 1986, when I took the family to their Knebworth concert. He was friendly, as if the rows of the past were forgotten. It turned out to be their last live concert, which meant I was at their first and last."I am highly cynically doubtful that Norman Sheffield could have even possibly seen Queen on their very first show back in 1970, particularly given that he only met the band well after John was part of the established line-up! Anyone else smell cash grab bullshit? |
| cmsdrums 26.07.2013 06:14 |
Would the band have invited Sheffield to Knebworth? Most likely not Coudl he have bought tickets himself (or blagged them via a contact)? Very possibly Would the band have allowed him backstage to meet them? My guess would be no There are two sides to every story (and Brian's version of events is just that, one version), but I am very doubtful of a lot of Sheffield's reecollection of things. |
| dysan 28.07.2013 04:07 |
He has repeated the Killer Queen was a number one hit. It wasn't. But I do believe the Knebworth tale and the way it was resolved. They had bigger problems then. |
| Sebastian 06.12.2014 03:16 |
On the plus side, it's very readable, entertaining, informative and, as it's been said already by other reviewers, it tells the story of a legendary studio and legendary recordings and artists. It's quite nice that he speaks highly of people who weren't necessarily nice to him, and he also admitted his intentions were far from altruistic (why should they be? He and his family needed to make a living), while at the same time defending himself from accusations he's received over the years because of hearsay. There's obviously many sides of every story, and it's good to know his. It's sort of a trend to vilify music executives and treat them as the worst people on earth, whilst ignoring, overlooking or underrating the importance they have for the industry itself. In a way I guess it makes rock artists more popular when they slam labels and managers... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that's often on the advice of said labels and managers as that'll make the artists look 'cooler' and more rebellious and then they'll sell more and everyone will benefit from that. Whether we like it or not, when artists sign up with a company (recording, publishing, distributing, whatever) they become employees and the executives are the investors. Without them, there's no product, no matter how talented the artists are and how much effort they put on writing, arranging and performing the songs. Having said that, there's one aspect that did disappoint me about the book and is that a lot of the so-called facts are just regurgitated from internet (or old magazine reports). Urban legends, such as 'Bo Rhap' having been played fourteen times by Kenny Everett (Everett officially claimed in 1976 he'd 'only' done it four times), seemed to have been copied and pasted without any sort of verification, thus marring the whole point of what 'setting the record straight' should have been. |