| Nick Browning 05.07.2014 18:40 |
Just curiosity because there are some stories about some bad experiences they had in a country |
| dave76 05.07.2014 18:57 |
South Africa maybe? As Roger stated "Sun City, i wished i never heard of the place". |
| winterspelt 05.07.2014 22:25 |
Mexico? I remember Freddie's famous "Motherfuckers, you bunch of tacos" or something like that to the crowd in Puebla's first gig (the fans were throwing shoes to the stage, lol) I dont remember anything like that in any other show... |
| pestgrid 06.07.2014 06:18 |
England |
| luthorn 06.07.2014 10:56 |
I remember they look pretty pissed off while being TV interviewed by that annoying dude in Brazil. Especially, when he addresses Freddie repeteadly as Fred. link |
| brENsKi 06.07.2014 12:47 |
luthorn wrote: I remember they look pretty pissed off while being TV interviewed by that annoying dude in Brazil. Especially, when he addresses Freddie repeteadly as Fred. link but that doesn't mean it was among his least favourite places to visit. let's face it the Brazilians loved queen and Rio just had to be Freddie's kinda place. |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.07.2014 12:56 |
pestgrid wrote: England |
| Saint Jiub 06.07.2014 13:04 |
US/Canada is probably 2nd to Mexico as leat favorite - North America tours were long and brutal. In Mexico batteries were confiscated and sold back to concert goers at inflated prices ... and the batteries were thrown at the band on stage. http://www.queenlive.ca/queen/81-10-17.htm link |
| Chief Mouse 06.07.2014 13:21 |
Why would anyone throw shoes on stage? Like, that would be the last thing I would think of while being in a Queen gig & enjoying the music. |
| TRS-Romania 06.07.2014 14:00 |
Slane Castle / Ireland / 1986 .... I think Freddie swore never to come back to Ireland after a fight in the audience occurred and Brian being hit by a beer can. |
| luthorn 06.07.2014 14:21 |
Perhaps, Australia? Queen played very few concerts there. Their first tour did not go over well, if I recall correctly, which maybe is the reason why they hardly toured there. Perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge of the issue can elaborate. |
| luthorn 06.07.2014 14:24 |
brENsKi wrote:Yeah, I agree with that. I am surprised thou that there are so few interviews from SA tours and the only one available shows Queen as very cold. Maybe they did not like the guy doing the interview, since, if I recall correctly, he was some big TV person and probably tried to show off.luthorn wrote: I remember they look pretty pissed off while being TV interviewed by that annoying dude in Brazil. Especially, when he addresses Freddie repeteadly as Fred. linkbut that doesn't mean it was among his least favourite places to visit. let's face it the Brazilians loved queen and Rio just had to be Freddie's kinda place. |
| pestgrid 06.07.2014 14:47 |
....from Freddie's point of view, its a hard question cuz Freddie wasnt that kind of person, he loved to perform,even if no one wanted to hear it.....With all the reactions from all over the world, Freddie still enjoyed the Live act of Queen, visiting the countries was just necassary in order to do it....He never went around the country to take in all its landscapes and touristy bits, but he sucked in the culture in other ways..and loved finding out about other ways of living other than the one he was raised in.....But he only did do Australia twice and South Africa once.....but then the same could be said for many other areas of the globe that they only visited once out of circumstance rather than love... |
| brENsKi 06.07.2014 16:51 |
TRS-Romania wrote: Slane Castle / Ireland / 1986 .... I think Freddie swore never to come back to Ireland after a fight in the audience occurred and Brian being hit by a beer can. Freddie said lots of things...let's face it - queen never went back anywhere after 1986...so no-one anywhere knows how serious this comment was |
| Heavenite 06.07.2014 17:08 |
luthorn wrote: Perhaps, Australia? Queen played very few concerts there. Their first tour did not go over well, if I recall correctly, which maybe is the reason why they hardly toured there. Perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge of the issue can elaborate.My vague recollection is they came in around 1974 and got booed off! In 1985, I still vaguely recall things went much better and I seem to remember one of the band (I think it was Freddie!) saying he was glad they did come back! And absence has made the heart grow fonder, if the ticket prices on Viagogo are anything to go by! They are getting up to ten times or even moe what they are getting for their cheapest US gigs! > link |
| people on streets 06.07.2014 18:09 |
brENsKi wrote:Ireland. I agree.TRS-Romania wrote: Slane Castle / Ireland / 1986 .... I think Freddie swore never to come back to Ireland after a fight in the audience occurred and Brian being hit by a beer can.Freddie said lots of things...let's face it - queen never went back anywhere after 1986...so no-one anywhere knows how serious this comment was They went back to Switzerland after 1986. Many times. Italy and Spain as well. Yes they stopped touring after 86 but they didnt stop visiting their favourite countries for work and leisure. |
| luthorn 06.07.2014 18:24 |
Switzerland was visited for tax reasons, since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time. Freddie and other artists often lived abroad and could visit the UK for only a number of days in a year before being considered residents for tax purposes. |
| winterspelt 06.07.2014 22:23 |
Chief Mouse wrote: Why would anyone throw shoes on stage? Like, that would be the last thing I would think of while being in a Queen gig & enjoying the music.There are many events like that in Mexico's history, none of them happened in the northern part of the country (Monterrey for example) most of the times, this issues happens in central or southside of Mexico and I remember a lot of them: That time Johnny Winter ended his set when a glass bottle did a huge cut in his face. The time when Jon Anderson was doing a solo show which included some natives and people were booing them. It happened when Deep Purple did their Concerto suite too, both of them in Mexico city. The time when someone used a military smoke grenade on a Slayer show (this happened a few years ago) Something happened in the Page/Plant tour in 1995 too, but I cant remember. |
| ITSM 07.07.2014 02:39 |
Chief Mouse wrote: Why would anyone throw shoes on stage? Like, that would be the last thing I would think of while being in a Queen gig & enjoying the music.I think it's "normal" to throw shoes in lots of places. NOFX has an album called "So long and thanks for all the shoes." Yes, it's a parody of "So long and thanks for all the fish," but I think they got a lot of shoes thrown at them. Batteries is something else, though... |
| TRS-Romania 07.07.2014 03:49 |
@luthorn, that is not true. Queen (nor its members) took Swiss residence or stayed there after 1986 for tax purposes. Before 1986 (especially at the end of the 1970's - beginning of the 80s) they were tax exiles. After 1986, they were not. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 05:11 |
luthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? |
| luthorn 07.07.2014 07:06 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:You mean paying a tax rate at over 90% is considered normal? from wikipedia, not a great source but a good start ".In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)"luthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? That's what the rate was for the richest until Thatcher showed up. In addition, Switzerland had a very low tax rate for the rich, quite negotiable in fact, so paying let's say 2% vs. 90% makes a difference. Off course, there are other reasons why one would live with the Swiss, like the privacy laws and lack of annoying press, but low taxes are low taxes. sorry to break your socialist bubble. a small and very incomplete list of tax exiles, among others the famous Brits such as Bowie and the Rolling Stones: link |
| The King Of Rhye 07.07.2014 08:15 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Uh, I thought it was the other way around!luthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? [Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)] 10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus 15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus 25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus 28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus 33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus 35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus 39.6% on taxable income over $406,750. from taxes.about.com............. |
| luthorn 07.07.2014 08:32 |
35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $406,750.
from taxes.about.com.............
That's also not quite right. link Top tax rate in the USA in 1980 was 70% for earners of over $215,400. Regan lowered the rate later on in the 80s. Please look at the situation from a historic perspective. |
| Saint Jiub 07.07.2014 09:10 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:News Flash - TQ is incredibly biased.luthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? I recall that TQ has a job in the public sector and feeds at the trough of government largesse. |
| Holly2003 07.07.2014 10:38 |
Yay! A discussion about tax rates! lol Anyway, I would guess once the novelty of touring North America has worn off, the late 1970s-early '80s tours might be tough, especially as the itineraries were packed and there was a lot of travelling involved. For instance, 1977 coast to coast NotW tour, including one gig in Toronto = 25 gigs in 42 days. 1979 coast to coast Jazz tour, including Canadian gigs = 35 gigs in 54 days. 1980 The Game tour = 41 gigs in 93 days (i.e. more gigs but taking more breaks between concerts). Brian also said they had to work really hard to sell tickets for the Hot Space tour and that was so much effort they never went back to the US. That was 33 gigs in 87 days (taking even more breaks between concerts). |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:38 |
Panchgani wrote: I recall that TQ has a job in the public sector and feeds at the trough of government largesse.You recall wrongly, but I guess that wouldn't be the first time, would it now? |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:42 |
The King Of Rhye wrote:Not that simple, because that only refers to wage income. When you file your return as capital gains, which you can if you have a business of any kind, whether scam or real, the rate drops dramatically. Even Forbes doesn't pretend it's not like that: linkthomasquinn 32989 wrote:Uh, I thought it was the other way around! [Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)] 10% on taxable income from $0 to $9,075, plus 15% on taxable income over $9,075 to $36,900, plus 25% on taxable income over $36,900 to $89,350, plus 28% on taxable income over $89,350 to $186,350, plus 33% on taxable income over $186,350 to $405,100, plus 35% on taxable income over $405,100 to $406,750, plus 39.6% on taxable income over $406,750. from taxes.about.com.............luthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:43 |
luthorn wrote: That's also not quite right. link Top tax rate in the USA in 1980 was 70% for earners of over $215,400. Regan lowered the rate later on in the 80s. Please look at the situation from a historic perspective.The bloody f*cking irony of you telling a historian specializing in 20th century American history to "look at the situation from a historic[al] perspective"! And that despite the fact that you don't even understand that there's such a thing as capital gains tax as well as income tax, which is the tool used by the American rich. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:49 |
luthorn wrote:No, it doesn't work like that at all. You are thinking solely of income tax, not tax on capital and capital gains.thomasquinn 32989 wrote:You mean paying a tax rate at over 90% is considered normal? from wikipedia, not a great source but a good start ".In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)" That's what the rate was for the richest until Thatcher showed up. In addition, Switzerland had a very low tax rate for the rich, quite negotiable in fact, so paying let's say 2% vs. 90% makes a difference. Off course, there are other reasons why one would live with the Swiss, like the privacy laws and lack of annoying press, but low taxes are low taxes. sorry to break your socialist bubble. a small and very incomplete list of tax exiles, among others the famous Brits such as Bowie and the Rolling Stones: linkluthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? Even if this weren't so, that's not how taxes work. They don't pay 90% tax over their income, they pay 90% over every pound above the top limit of the lower tax scales. So if the rate is, say, 25% up to 50 000, 50% from 50 001 to 100 000 and 75% from 100 001 up, someone who made 200 000 would pay 112 500, or 56.25%. But hey, feel free to buy into the rightist BS. It fits in with the rest of your behavior on this site. |
| luthorn 07.07.2014 16:09 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:as I said "This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)" thanks for explaining the marginal tax rate, despite the fact that I already indicated it in the post. So glad that Freddie would fall into the pauper income tax bracket between earnings of 0-1000, but then fork out 90% of money above 20,000. So if he made 500,000, in any given year, he would pay 90% on 480,000 leaving him with 48,000 from the mentioned sum yay yay yay!!!luthorn wrote:No, it doesn't work like that at all. You are thinking solely of income tax, not tax on capital and capital gains. Even if this weren't so, that's not how taxes work. They don't pay 90% tax over their income, they pay 90% over every pound above the top limit of the lower tax scales. So if the rate is, say, 25% up to 50 000, 50% from 50 001 to 100 000 and 75% from 100 001 up, someone who made 200 000 would pay 112 500, or 56.25%. But hey, feel free to buy into the rightist BS. It fits in with the rest of your behavior on this site.thomasquinn 32989 wrote:You mean paying a tax rate at over 90% is considered normal? from wikipedia, not a great source but a good start ".In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)" That's what the rate was for the richest until Thatcher showed up. In addition, Switzerland had a very low tax rate for the rich, quite negotiable in fact, so paying let's say 2% vs. 90% makes a difference. Off course, there are other reasons why one would live with the Swiss, like the privacy laws and lack of annoying press, but low taxes are low taxes. sorry to break your socialist bubble. a small and very incomplete list of tax exiles, among others the famous Brits such as Bowie and the Rolling Stones: linkluthorn wrote: Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes? food for socialist's thought (not that they think of anything but how to line their pockets with other peoples money) link |
| musicland munich 07.07.2014 18:21 |
There is a filmed statement from Roger about the british taxes in the late 70's. I forgot about the whole content but he mentioned somewhat above 90 Percent in some cases.Back then it leads to the newspaper slogan " Labour doesn't work"... |
| The King Of Rhye 07.07.2014 20:14 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Not that simple, because that only refers to wage income. When you file your return as capital gains, which you can if you have a business of any kind, whether scam or real, the rate drops dramatically. Even Forbes doesn't pretend it's not like that: linkOkay, I actually did not realize that....... |
| winterspelt 07.07.2014 22:53 |
Freddie's least favorite country is Zanzibar. |
| Holly2003 08.07.2014 04:37 |
Rich people employ an army of accountants to hide their money in various companies whose accounts can be manipulated to make it seem they aren't making much profit, They can also transfer money into off-shore accounts in places like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to avoid paying British tax. So regardless of actual tax rates (which often favour the rich and powerful anyway), the rich pay less because they have the resources (and friends in Govt) to avoid paying their fair share. I would imagine Queen did this too. Roger's comments refer to a percentage of their income which would have been taxed at a high rate, not ALL their income. Fuck you Roger, pay your fucking taxes! lol |