| brians wig 05.12.2014 06:23 |
I've just taken delivery of the new Alice Cooper boxset. It cost me £34 delivered from Amazon and I was staggered at the size of it. The box itself is a cm deeper than the Queen Rainbow box: 4.5cm as opposed to 3.5cm. Inside are TWO packages: A fold-out 3 vinyl set of the live concert and a DVD/BD/2CD book set containing 80 pages of images, the latter holding the discs more nicely than the Queen one. I understand that there are FIVE members of Queen who want paying (Jim Beach being the 5th) and there will have been a bit of restoration work, but when you compare the costs of this to the costs of the Queen Rainbow sets, it just seems to me that the price the North American continents paid was a much more realistic price than the extortionate rip-off price the Europeans ended up paying. I know the AC boxset doesn't have reprints of memoribilia, but at £34 as opposed to 5 times that same figure for the Queen stuff (remember the Rainbow vinyls were released seperately at an average cost of £80 and yes, I know there were 4 of them not 3, so we'll call it £60 shall we?), I think Queen have ripped us Europeans off. |
| miraclesteinway 05.12.2014 06:56 |
actually it's not that five members of Queen want paying - it's that the band plus everyone who worked on the new release want paying. We have to assume that is the case for the Alice Cooper boxed set too, though! I think when a band releases a product, you have to decide whether it's worth to buy it or not. There's no use buying something that you think is a rip off. I have no idea what the production costs are for these boxed sets. I know that vinyl is quite expensive to produce but I've no idea why the two LP version can be bought for £35 and the 4 LP version costs £120. I don't think, by the way, that Queen themselves are setting the price for the product. I think the record company will decide exactly what is released and exactly how it is presented, probably in consultation with the band, and the final price will be calculated (read: dreamed up) by the record company. This isn't an item that will make the record company a lot of money, I don't think it will sell millions (I mean, that Live at the Rainbow as a release across all formats won't chart that well), and it won't have a massive profit margin. I think the best value boxed set for the collector was probably the complete works back in 1985. I got mine new in 1994, it's an un-numbered vinyl edition that I got from HMV, and I don't care that it has no number and isn't signed. How 14 LPs in a boxed set could cost £50 in 1994 (probably it cost £30 to £50 when it was released, which in '85 was a lot, but actually inflation hasn't been that much since the 1990s comparatively) and how 4 LPs can cost £120 in 2014 is beyond me - even if the vinyl is better quality. |
| The King Of Rhye 05.12.2014 07:41 |
miraclesteinway wrote: I think when a band releases a product, you have to decide whether it's worth to buy it or not. There's no use buying something that you think is a rip off.Simply stated but a good point!!! |
| tcc 05.12.2014 08:01 |
This is a strange thread from the OP who had, in another thread, criticized another person for not wanting to buy Queen Forever :-) |
| RafaelS 05.12.2014 12:12 |
Freddie once said that he was a greedy bitch. |
| Mr.Mouth 05.12.2014 13:03 |
No! |
| gerry 05.12.2014 13:14 |
Talking of greedy buggers that queen online shop is very expensive. I think its called Digital stores. The new Queen album in the delux version was £15.99 and i have seen it for sale much cheaper than that, around £12.99. How can the Queen online store rip us fans off? |
| pittrek 05.12.2014 13:19 |
I think Queen are ALSO greedy bastards, not JUST greedy bastards. They're mainly talented musicians :) But yes, 99% of their releases in the last 20 years are not worth buying, and even if they do release something good, they waste the opportunity to make it GREAT. |
| Barry Durex 05.12.2014 14:02 |
They have grown some fins on their backs over the years. |
| Marknow 05.12.2014 14:14 |
In all honesty, I think this subject would be great for a Thesis. There are so many factors that need to be taken in consideration to get a true scope of the nature of Queen product post 1991. It is very easy to say greed is the main factor, I think the answer is way more complicated than saying Bri&Rog are greedy. I'm not a very articulate person but I do feel I would need at least 20 pages of this forum to give an honest and detailed answer to that question. Great question David, I would like to see some healthy debate on this one. |
| winterspelt 05.12.2014 14:30 |
I dont know about that Alice Cooper boxset of its contents, is that as rare as the Rainbow album? There were as many people involved in the AC than in the Queen album correcting audio, video, etc? Also, you are forgetting one important thing: Alice Cooper is the only one who receives the money, while Queen have to split the money in 3 live members and Mary Austin or whoever gets Freddie's royalties. Is Mary asking for the same amount of money as Brian, John and Roger? Is she asking for more? There are lots and lots of reasons behind the price tag and only one of them involves greed... |
| The Real Wizard 05.12.2014 16:11 |
pittrek wrote: I think Queen are ALSO greedy bastards, not JUST greedy bastards. They're mainly talented musicians :) But yes, 99% of their releases in the last 20 years are not worth buying, and even if they do release something good, they waste the opportunity to make it GREAT.Nahh, that's an overstatement. Many are pointless compilations, of course - but that's the record companies just wanting more product. Let's review this list: 2001 - Freddie box 2002 - Greatest Video Hits 1 2003 - Greatest Video Hits 2 2003 - Wembley DVD (complete show for the first time) 2004 - Live At The Bowl DVD 2006 - ANATO documentary 2007 - Rock Montreal CD/DVD 2011 - albums remastered, great bonus tracks 2011 - Days Of Our Lives documentary, extras 2011 - Wembley DVD (complete first night) 2012 - Budapest CD/DVD/blu-ray 2013 - Roger Taylor box 2014 - Live At The Rainbow box 2014 - Queen Forever Plus Q+PR stuff and Roger's solo album. ^ we can nitpick at the details, but ever one of these releases contained something that hadn't been previously seen/heard. This is more than can be said about most of the old bands. Sure, Pink Floyd and Springsteen have released delicious box sets that no individual Queen release can compare to. But let's not lose perspective. Queen have released a ton of excellent stuff in the past 15 years. There is no way we can argue that QPL don't give a fuck about the fans. That's just plain not true. They didn't have to do the complete Budapest show on CD or the March disc of the Rainbow release. If they release some kind of box with a compilation of 1976-79 live footage, then we can safely say they've run the gamut. |
| Mr.QueenFan 05.12.2014 19:24 |
miraclesteinway wrote: I think the best value boxed set for the collector was probably the complete works back in 1985. I got mine new in 1994, it's an un-numbered vinyl edition that I got from HMV, and I don't care that it has no number and isn't signed. How 14 LPs in a boxed set could cost £50 in 1994 (probably it cost £30 to £50 when it was released, which in '85 was a lot, but actually inflation hasn't been that much since the 1990s comparatively) and how 4 LPs can cost £120 in 2014 is beyond me - even if the vinyl is better quality.I'm not sure about this but i supose that this box-set should be numbered. Maybe you have a bootleg edition or other kind of edition, but i would be very surprised if this un-numbered box-set was the original one. |
| matt z 05.12.2014 20:59 |
Wizard ya left off Queen Rocks Stone Cold Classics Absolute Greatest Re releases of what was then WWRY (eagle, image plus recent version titled Rock Montreal) singles collections 1, 2, Deep tracks 1-3 greatest hits iii and. . Well... what else was there? |
| Doga 05.12.2014 21:14 |
You can't blame the record company for wanting to earn a few bucks. But you, as an intelligent human being, should know what you want to buy because is interesting and what not because is oriented to the casuals. |
| winterspelt 05.12.2014 22:32 |
matt z wrote: Wizard ya left off Queen Rocks Stone Cold Classics Absolute Greatest Re releases of what was then WWRY (eagle, image plus recent version titled Rock Montreal) singles collections 1, 2, Deep tracks 1-3 greatest hits iii and. . Well... what else was there?But you are missing something very important: With the possible exception of Rocks and Montreal, all those releases you mention were not for the fans but for the people who buys compilations. The most important tracks in Rocks were No One and the rerecording of ICLWY. One of them (NOBY) released as single. As for Montreal, it was rereleased for different companies for contractual reasons, not for greed. |
| pittrek 06.12.2014 06:21 |
The Real Wizard wrote:pittrek wrote: I think Queen are ALSO greedy bastards, not JUST greedy bastards. They're mainly talented musicians :) But yes, 99% of their releases in the last 20 years are not worth buying, and even if they do release something good, they waste the opportunity to make it GREAT.Nahh, that's an overstatement. Many are pointless compilations, of course - but that's the record companies just wanting more product. Let's review this list: 2001 - Freddie box 2002 - Greatest Video Hits 1 2003 - Greatest Video Hits 2 2003 - Wembley DVD (complete show for the first time) 2004 - Live At The Bowl DVD 2006 - ANATO documentary 2007 - Rock Montreal CD/DVD 2011 - albums remastered, great bonus tracks 2011 - Days Of Our Lives documentary, extras 2011 - Wembley DVD (complete first night) 2012 - Budapest CD/DVD/blu-ray 2013 - Roger Taylor box 2014 - Live At The Rainbow box 2014 - Queen Forever Plus Q+PR stuff and Roger's solo album. ^ we can nitpick at the details, but ever one of these releases contained something that hadn't been previously seen/heard. This is more than can be said about most of the old bands. Sure, Pink Floyd and Springsteen have released delicious box sets that no individual Queen release can compare to. But let's not lose perspective. Queen have released a ton of excellent stuff in the past 15 years. There is no way we can argue that QPL don't give a fuck about the fans. That's just plain not true. They didn't have to do the complete Budapest show on CD or the March disc of the Rainbow release. If they release some kind of box with a compilation of 1976-79 live footage, then we can safely say they've run the gamut. |
| pittrek 06.12.2014 06:21 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Nahh, that's an overstatement. Many are pointless compilations, of course - but that's the record companies just wanting more product. Let's review this list: 2001 - Freddie box 2002 - Greatest Video Hits 1 2003 - Greatest Video Hits 2 2003 - Wembley DVD (complete show for the first time) 2004 - Live At The Bowl DVD 2006 - ANATO documentary 2007 - Rock Montreal CD/DVD 2011 - albums remastered, great bonus tracks 2011 - Days Of Our Lives documentary, extras 2011 - Wembley DVD (complete first night) 2012 - Budapest CD/DVD/blu-ray 2013 - Roger Taylor box 2014 - Live At The Rainbow box 2014 - Queen Forever Plus Q+PR stuff and Roger's solo album. ^ we can nitpick at the details, but ever one of these releases contained something that hadn't been previously seen/heard. This is more than can be said about most of the old bands. Sure, Pink Floyd and Springsteen have released delicious box sets that no individual Queen release can compare to. But let's not lose perspective. Queen have released a ton of excellent stuff in the past 15 years. There is no way we can argue that QPL don't give a fuck about the fans. That's just plain not true. They didn't have to do the complete Budapest show on CD or the March disc of the Rainbow release. If they release some kind of box with a compilation of 1976-79 live footage, then we can safely say they've run the gamut.I'll try to remember what they release - if I forget something please let me know. "Wasted opportunity" = a product, which is quite good, but it could be much MUCH better if they actually cared about pleasing the fans and not only to get as much money as possible with investing as little as possible 1991/92 - the Hollywood Records singles and promos - crap 1992 - Wembley CD - edited - wasted opportunity 1992 - Box of Trix - great 1992 - Queen Talks - crap 1993 - Five Live - OK 1993 - Freddie Tribute VHS - OK 1995 - Made In Heaven - great 1997 - Queen Rocks - OK 1998 - Fugees - AOBTD - crap 1999 - Basic Bootlegs - a combination of great and crap 2001 - WATC with Robbie Wililams - OK 2001 - Freddie boxset - wasted opportunity 2002 - Greatest Video Hits 1 - wasted opportunity 2002 - Freddie Tribute DVD - crap 2003 - WWRY with John Farnham - OK 2003 - AOBTD with Annie Crummer(?) - crap 2003 - Wembley CD/DVD - OK 2003 - Greatest Video Hits 2 - wasted opportunity 2004 - Live at the Bowl CD/DVD - great 2004 - Solo Por Ti - crap 2004/2005 - Jewels 1&2 - OK 2005 - ANATO documentary - great 2007 - Montreal - great CD, crap DVD/BD 2008 - Singles collection - wasted opportunity 2009 - Bohemian Rhapsody with Muppets - ehm, how to say it politely? 2009 - Absolute Greatest - the standard editions are crap, the "collectors edition" is a wasted opportunity 2011 - the remasters - I don't like the remasters at all, and the bonus "EPs" are a wasted opportunity 2011 - Deep Cuts - can't decide if crap or a wasted opportunity 2011 - Days of Our Lives - great 2011 - Wembley CD/DVD - wasted opportunity 2012 - Hungarian Rhapsody - wasted opportunity 2013 - Icon - crap 2013 - Roger Taylor box - I'm not REALLY interested that much in Roger's solo work, I still didn't buy it or listened to a downloaded version 2014 - Rainbow - can't decide between "great" and "wasted opportunity" 2014 - Forever - crap ( the "new" songs are OK) ^ we can nitpick at the details, but ever one of these releases contained something that hadn't been previously seen/heard.Yes, that's for me the main problem (at least for me). That these releases contain stuff we bought 20 times before AND a tiny little bit of new material. It's like they're afraid to take any risks. They could release a full album of unreleased demos and alternate takes, and it could be a bestseller, but no, they throw a few interesting songs to bonus "EPs", and 3 of them to a new compilation. They could give us the first Wembley night, but no, they have to add it as a bonus to a 50th release of the second night (and of course they have to throw out the bonus features of the previous releases). That's the problem. They're strategy. Instead of giving the fans something new they give us the same stuff again and again and again just with a little interesting extra |
| matt z 06.12.2014 06:43 |
Ftr: I wasn't bitching, I had thought those were the only releases at the time. But I guess not. I know the Saul swimmer wwry was re"interpreted" after queen recovered the copyright. No complaint there. I even have an eagle vhs from that. The releases DID get better subsequently. Even though some complain about the stage gel colors (absurd... those colors WERE THERE ON STAGE) ANYWAYS. Just saying. Yeah. I understand that most releases were just contractually bound. I only bought things after "the platinum collection" in bargain sales. .. calling the FM boxed set a missed opportunity is bad. Although there's the ensueño mistake it's pretty damn comprehensive. Those years I anticipated each new queen release. Unfortunately I bought a POS (*comparatively) called THE CROWN JEWELS which touted new photographs a new booklet and (GASP! ) a new essay! Ftr nothing was new in it. In fact it withheld reasonable replications of inner sleeves. I believe NOTW was even in a single sleeve without the center painting. (I may be wrong. I used it for a year then quickly retired it since the sleeves scratched the cds with each removal. No new tracks. No extra 12" collection like the lp collection. Just the first 8 in a flimsy case. Even CLASSIC QUEEN had the interview extra plus TGIC. Can't say I'm NOT disappointed by releases but eh. This is me. I'm waiting till Christmas to play LIVE AT THE RAINBOW ... cause I need something to be joyous about. |
| ANAGRAMER 06.12.2014 07:59 |
In Vienna every second billboard is advertising WWRY argh! |
| AlbaNo1 06.12.2014 08:45 |
pittrek wrote: I think Queen are ALSO greedy bastards, not JUST greedy bastards. They're mainly talented musicians :) But yes, 99% of their releases in the last 20 years are not worth buying, and even if they do release something good, they waste the opportunity to make it GREAT.This is it. Great rock band but definitely always liked the money, and have always been on the line between art and commerce. |
| gerry 06.12.2014 09:52 |
If you think the last 20 years are bad then wait till Queen release an album with Madam Lambert! lol |
| brENsKi 06.12.2014 10:57 |
^^^ as predictably asinine as usual |
| Sheer Brass Neck 06.12.2014 11:49 |
AlbaNo1 wrote:Interesting take. I think that until Jazz, Queen did what they wanted and made their audience come to them and that's when they were great. Starting with The Game, the chased after what they think their audience wanted and that's when their writing suffered.pittrek wrote: I think Queen are ALSO greedy bastards, not JUST greedy bastards. They're mainly talented musicians :) But yes, 99% of their releases in the last 20 years are not worth buying, and even if they do release something good, they waste the opportunity to make it GREAT.This is it. Great rock band but definitely always liked the money, and have always been on the line between art and commerce. |
| matt z 06.12.2014 19:04 |
That Madam Lambert thing is gonna probably become his new moniker. Once Cher croaks, the seat of queermania is going to be open. |
| Lamebert whoehahaha 29.12.2018 01:40 |
Bump |
| FunLovinCriminal 07.01.2019 01:46 |
All Legacy-Acts have become „greedy bastards“ - all of them. Why would they have done the movie, had it not been for their money-hunger? An artistic statement it is not. Neither have been the countless repackaging and re-compiling of existing material. The value of music is going down, year by year, and if a band still has vault-material, now is the right time to release it. In fact, the big labels make more money with "catalogue“-stuff than with new releases by contemporary acts, with the exception of Adele, Sheeran and Coldplay. Also the core-audience of many bands like Pink Floyd, Queen, Beatles and the Stones is moving towards its retirement age. It's not going to purchase box-sets etc forever! On thing that is not correct is the assumption that record companies decide on the pricing of box-sets. Quite to the contrary, it's the band's managers who dictate the pricing of their clients products. Beatles-CDs have never ever been found in the nice price-racks of record shops. No record company has any right to release anything by any legacy act without the consent of the respective managers. So, yes, Queen are greedy bastards. There are examples of repackaging/adding new material to existing albums in affordable/tasteful ways... see the excellent media-books by Jethro Tull... |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 07.01.2019 17:06 |
I'm very disappointed in them licensing Don't Stop Me Now for a cheap lipstick commercial...and that was not the only ad with a queen song aired during the Golden Globes. It's clear what Brian and Roger's motivations are, and yes, Mary and John too. |
| runner_70 07.01.2019 18:37 |
Sweetandtenderhooligan wrote: I'm very disappointed in them licensing Don't Stop Me Now for a cheap lipstick commercial...and that was not the only ad with a queen song aired during the Golden Globes. It's clear what Brian and Roger's motivations are, and yes, Mary and John too.Maylor would even sell Freddies ashes for a quick buck if they owned them - they have become the STanley and SImmons from Queen |
| paulprenter 07.01.2019 19:01 |
+1 for Sheer Brass Neck and runner_70 Artistically it went down after The Game and the last 20 years Maylor have become a disgraceful money grabbing machine. They’ve turned Freddie into a caricature and I blane them for it. Now darlings...back to the nicer things in life...can someone play me a disco track? Something like Cool Cat or Back Chat...gotta love WHOEHAHAHAHA |
| Sweetandtenderhooligan 07.01.2019 19:08 |
Paul: I actually love those two songs haha, but I like that album in general. Who owns Freddie's royalties? I've heard two things: Mary and Kashmira and the band. Not sure what's true, but whoever is in charge of them is approving this as well. I don't want to speak for Freddie, but I don't think he'd enjoy his songs being used for drug store lipstick. Tom Ford makeup, maybe haha |
| spiralstatic 08.01.2019 08:56 |
Sweetandtenderhooligan as far as I know Freddie's royalties go 50% to Mary and 50% to his family which is now just Kash. I agree with the above: in the early days Queen were fiercely about the art. For me the really great albums are Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack, A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races - the final one being the absolute epitome of what Queen are, though I love all of these albums completely. The next few albums have a few really great tracks, but also some not great ones, but for me News of the World and Jazz are still very good. Even by The Game, there are tracks I like, but this is the first album where for me there isn't one solitary absolutely amazing track. Not in the way there was on the early albums. I don't listen to any of the other 80's albums. There's the odd track that's alright but in comparison to the early albums, for me it is just like they're not trying - not in the way they used to. It has nothing to do with the kind of music they made then. Even if it wasn't to my taste, I could appreciate if it was made well. Then with Innuendo and Made in Heaven (And for Freddie with Barcelona) they were striving again, I suppose as they were all aware of how they were running out of time. So, artistically I feel like it was much better as there was the same urgency that usually a band only has at the start of their career, before they have reached where they want to be. And of course there is also added poignancy to these albums. I'm not sure whether the motivation for things Brian and Roger put out now is money. They must all have SO much money. To me it feels more like it is ego. You've been the biggest band in the world and to just sit at home without people revering you must feel like your life is over a bit. There's some thing that's a bit contradictory in it as well. I sort of feel like they put Freddie out there, but really behind all they do lies the unspoken (and sometimes actually spoken) idea that "I'm as good or better than Freddie" especially with Brian. I've noticed in interviews when he speaks about songs Freddie wrote, he'll sometimes make a throwaway comment of "Oh but this part of the song I totally wrote myself." Why would he do that? He doesn't need to. I find it a curious aspect of Brian's personality that he's so willing to throw in "Oh but I did this bit!" about songs written by someone who is now dead!?! He is such a kind, polite, caring seeming man. But I guess all of the band all had to have big egos in order to have the belief in themselves to make it in the first place?! |
| Martin Packer 08.01.2019 10:13 |
Queen always were a "big" act.* Bigness was their thing - and still is. And that took finance. And that habit isn't going to get kicked. * As opposed to "small time" or "punk" or whatever. |
| Vocal harmony 08.01.2019 12:17 |
spiralstatic wrote:[/. . . . . . . but really behind all they do lies the unspoken (and sometimes actually spoken) idea that "I'm as good or better than Freddie" especially with Brian. I've noticed in interviews when he speaks about songs Freddie wrote, he'll sometimes make a throwaway comment of "Oh but this part of the song I totally wrote myself." Why would he do that? He doesn't need to. I find it a curious aspect of Brian's personality that he's so willing to throw in "Oh but I did this bit!" about songs written by someone who is now dead!?. . . .The reason he says those things is because they are true, there are interview on documentaries and in magazines, when talking about songs where he says this is Freddie's riff or Freddie wrote this on piano so it's a challenge to play on guitar, Freddie was a brilliant pianist, or musician and singer or this was all Freddie's ideas. There is a balanced view, if you look or listen for it. Roger in not such an obvious way said that someone brings an idea into the studio and everyone changes it, it kind of implies the same thing. |