| Sebastian 05.04.2015 10:46 |
I think it deserves its own topic. Queen started off their touring life by playing some local concerts (their first concert outside England was their 45th), then going to other parts of the anglo-sphere (Australia, Scotland, Wales, America, Canada, Ireland), as well as Western Europe (Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, West Germany, France, Scandinavia, Spain and Belgium). In the 1980's they went to uncharted territories, places where no other English-speaking act had ever been to... except that they totally had. It wasn't by any means common to go to those places in South America (Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela), Africa (Sun City), Eastern Europe (Hungary) or North America (Mexico), but it doesn't mean Queen were the first ones to go there. So, some forerunners: Barry White: Venezuela in 1977. Bob Dylan: Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1984. He also went to Italy before Queen. Bob Marley: Poland in 1978, Ivory Coast, Bahamas and T&T in 1979, Ghana in 1980. Bon Jovi: Puerto Rico in 1984 and 1985. David Bowie: Singapore, Hong Kong and Thailand in 1983. Depeche Mode: China and Thailand in 1983. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Northern Ireland and (before Queen) Italy in 1984. Hungary, Greece and (again) Poland in 1985. Dire Straits: Poland in 1981, Poland (again) and Czechoslovakia in 1983, Israel, Greece, Czechoslovakia and Serbia in 1985. Donna Summer: Venezuela in 1977. Elton John: Sun City a year before Queen; in 1984 he also went to China, Yugoslavia (Queen'd already played in Croatia, but not in Serbia or Bosnia), Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. He visited New Zealand long before Queen did and, unlike Queen, he did play in Northern Ireland. Iron Maiden: Serbia in 1981. Hungary, Poland, Portugal and Serbia (again) in 1984. Jackson Five: Japan in 1973 (before Queen). 1974 in Panama, Brazil, Hong Kong and Philippines. In 1976 they went to Venezuela and again The Philippines. Jools Holland: Venezuela in 1981 (before Queen). Leonard Cohen: Israel in 1980. Poland, Portugal and (again) Israel in 1985. Mike Oldfield: Greece, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Israel in 1981. Peter Frampton: Venezuela in 1980. Pink Floyd: Japan long before Queen. Also Poland in 1973. The Hollies: Venezuela in 1977. The Jacksons: 1979 in South Africa and Senegal. The Police: In 1980 they went to India, Portugal, Mexico and Argentina. In 1981 they went to Caracas (before Queen did), 1982 to Chile and Italy, 1983 to Poland. The Who: Poland in 1972. Tina Turner: Venezuela in 1979, Hungary in 1985. U2: 1984 and 1985 in Czechoslovakia. Van Halen: Peru and Uruguay in 1983. XTC: Venezuela in 1981 (before Queen). Yes: 1973 in Mexico. |
| Annette 05.04.2015 15:16 |
Sebastian, I feel a bit honoured that my unstructured thoughts in '... stats about ...concerts' led to a new topic. : -) |
| Daniel Nester 05.04.2015 15:40 |
The list here, I have to say, is really interesting--kudos for compiling it... I think the narrative of Queen going into uncharted territories is pretty much limited to South America. I may be having a senior moment, I may be wrong, but I don't recall any of the band histories or band members mentioning any other territory other than South America (or maybe Mexico) as one where Queen really broke new ground. I would define this "new ground" as a rock band bringing a full-fledged production in a stadium-type show to the whole continent as part of a tour. Not just, in other words, one-offs. For example, many of the acts that played Venezuela c. 1980 were largely on the downturn popularity-wise--Barry White and Donna Summer and Jackson 5 played during the post-disco-is-dead doldrums, and Peter Frampton was post-I'm in You flop era. I'd be curious what venue(s) they played--was it a large one? Maybe they were playing outdoor concerts for 200,000 paying fans, but I suspect it was a small place. Or maybe it was the Poliedro. Another examples: The Police did two shows at the Polidiero, and that was the end of the first "South American leg" of their tour. At any rate, on the score of South America being toured properly by Queen, I'd say the narrative remains largely intact. |
| Sebastian 05.04.2015 18:33 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I don't recall any of the band histories or band members mentioning any other territory other than South America (or maybe Mexico) as one where Queen really broke new ground. I would define this "new ground" as a rock band bringing a full-fledged production in a stadium-type show to the whole continent as part of a tour. Not just, in other words, one-offs.Yeah but it wasn't the whole continent... they went to Argentina and Brazil, then a few months later to Venezuela, and those three were the only South American countries where they played, so it's not like they took the show 'to the whole continent.' I know, I know, a tour doesn't need to go 'everywhere,' but the Jazz tour over Europe, for instance, included 28 concerts in seven countries. In a non-romanticised unbiased objective context, the two concerts they did in Brazil could be considered 'one-offs' (two-offs?), rather than a proper tour. They did plan to go to more places (Fortaleza, I think, and Rio), but there was executive meddling. Daniel Nester wrote: At any rate, on the score of South America being toured properly by Queen, I'd say the narrative remains largely intact.Except that it wasn't 'toured properly' any more than their four 1976 concerts over three capital cities would count as a 'proper British tour.' They did five concerts in Argentina and two in Brazil, then they took some months to record and then they did three gigs in Venezuela (could've been more but politics got in the way), and that's all they did in South America that year. Great concerts, Fred was in great vocal shape, lovely moments they certainly treasured (John called that tour the best moment of his career), but it wasn't like they 'toured properly' over the whole continent and it's not like nobody had ever been in any of those places before. A great achievement indeed, and one worth praising, but worth praising for what it really was: ten fabulous concerts with some mesmerising musicality, theatricality and troubleshooting (remember Fred and the mic on Save Me?). But not in the sense of trying to allocate them 'first band to do so and so...' type of accolades. |
| Sheldon 06.04.2015 02:56 |
Sebastian wrote: Van Halen: Peru and Uruguay in 1983.LOL, was this before of after the Queen show? ;D |
| brENsKi 06.04.2015 03:23 |
isn't japan missing from the first list? |
| Sebastian 06.04.2015 05:00 |
Sheldon wrote:Before, since Queen never played in Peru or Uruguay.Sebastian wrote: Van Halen: Peru and Uruguay in 1983.LOL, was this before of after the Queen show? ;D brENsKi wrote: isn't japan missing from the first list?It wasn't uncharted by the time Queen started, as The Beatles had been there. By the time Queen were famous enough to do an international tour, Japan was one of the legs, but by then quite a few artists had been there already. My overall point is that, while Queen's visits to Japan, Hungary, South America and Mexico (not the same thing) were certainly noteworthy, it doesn't mean they were the only artists to successfully play there. The world doesn't revolve around Roger, Freddie, John and Brian. |
| Daniel Nester 06.04.2015 06:27 |
Fair enough. I guess the definition of "proper tour" is an elastic one. |
| Rick 06.04.2015 07:04 |
You have too much spare time. ;-) |
| Sebastian 06.04.2015 08:07 |
Rick wrote: You have too much spare time. ;-)I don't know if you're referring to me, but no, I don't. Not that it's any of your business anyway. Not being on FB or Twitter does give me a bit of time, which is enough to research and type something like this. My original post contained 489 words. I'm not a professional typist but I can still do it at 81 wpm, which means it took me six minutes to type that whole thing. Add about four to rephrase and whatnot and you've got ten minutes, which add up to 0.69% of a day, 0.09% of a week, 0.02% of a 30-day month like April, 0.0019% of a non-leap year like this one. So no, 0.0019% of a year is not 'too much spare time.' |
| Daniel Nester 06.04.2015 10:25 |
I think it's an interesting topic. It speaks to how Queen--and every other band and artist, for that matter--spins and creates their legacy and mythology. There's definitely holes you can poke into anyone's story, and Queen's is no exception. I had some fun poking around looking for other stories, and found this article on XTC and Jools Holland in Venezuela: http://www.uncut.co.uk/blog/xtc-crackers-in-caracas-12327 The main way I would debunk this "uncharted territory" narrative of Queen's--if I wanted to, of course--is that these gigs in South America et al. is mentioned in the wake of "losing America" post-Hot Space. The thing is: these dates we're talking about predate Hot Space. They start during The Game tour. So it's a bit odd to think about these gigs as "Queen in exile" vis a vis North America. |
| brENsKi 06.04.2015 11:35 |
Sebastian wrote:Seb i was referring to your opening para:brENsKi wrote: isn't japan missing from the first list?It wasn't uncharted by the time Queen started, as The Beatles had been there. By the time Queen were famous enough to do an international tour, Japan was one of the legs, but by then quite a few artists had been there already. Sebastian wrote:Queen started off their touring life by playing some local concerts (their first concert outside England was their 45th), then going to other parts of the anglo-sphere (Australia, Scotland, Wales, America, Canada, Ireland), as well as Western Europe (Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, West Germany, France, Scandinavia, Spain and Belgium).western europe had been extensively toured by loads of bands...as had japan - therefore, you omitted Japan from that list |
| Rick 06.04.2015 15:49 |
Sebastian wrote:OkRick wrote: You have too much spare time. ;-)I don't know if you're referring to me, but no, I don't. Not that it's any of your business anyway. Not being on FB or Twitter does give me a bit of time, which is enough to research and type something like this. My original post contained 489 words. I'm not a professional typist but I can still do it at 81 wpm, which means it took me six minutes to type that whole thing. Add about four to rephrase and whatnot and you've got ten minutes, which add up to 0.69% of a day, 0.09% of a week, 0.02% of a 30-day month like April, 0.0019% of a non-leap year like this one. So no, 0.0019% of a year is not 'too much spare time.' |
| Sebastian 06.04.2015 21:12 |
brENsKi wrote: western europe had been extensively toured by loads of bands...as had japan - therefore, you omitted Japan from that listGood point! |
| master marathon runner 07.04.2015 05:27 |
Sebastian, do you have any info on how many gigs they played on a Wednesday? |
| cmsdrums 07.04.2015 05:53 |
An earlier post above raises a good questions as to the size of venues played by bands that went to certain territories before Queen. Did they play football stadia/huge fields to 50,000-150,000, or where they arenas (5,000-15,000), theatres (1,000+), or clubs (500+). Queen were certainly not the first in a lot of those territores as is the folklore, but they may have been the first on an 'industrial scale', requiring Government interventions, major press announcements etc...? |
| Sue Dounim 07.04.2015 06:46 |
did any big rock band before Led Zeppelin play specifically in Hiroshima? |
| Sebastian 07.04.2015 10:39 |
master marathon runner wrote: Sebastian, do you have any info on how many gigs they played on a Wednesday?Yes. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.04.2015 13:19 |
Sebastian wrote:master marathon runner wrote: Sebastian, do you have any info on how many gigs they played on a Wednesday?Yes. That's the only right answer right there. |
| The King Of Rhye 07.04.2015 14:05 |
Speaking of uncharted territory.....I just read that last year Metallica became the first band to play on 7 continents, when they played some sort of concert in Antarctica.... (or is that 4, or 5, or whatever? lol) |
| Ozz 07.04.2015 17:08 |
As a southamerican I must say the nitpicking here is a bit too much. (as usual) Was Christopher Columbus the first to reach the coasts of America? Not at all. But he's recognized as the one who discovered this whole new world.... 81' Queen tour in SouthAmerica was HUGE ! and build the grounds to bigger things like Rock in Rio later in 85. In that sense, they totally conquered uncharted territories here. All the disco acts don't count at all, they were circus for the upper class during the dictatorship years. Even Van Halen seems to have gone unnoticed for what I can tell here... You may be right about the soviet countries and all the east ... Queen was one more of many. |
| Sebastian 07.04.2015 20:21 |
Ozz wrote: As a southamericanOrigin doesn't, and shouldn't, add or detract relevance from a claim. Had you been born in Malaysia, Zambia or Kosovo, should we ignore your comment? Ozz wrote: the nitpicking here is a bit too much.But how much is too much? Who defines that? Ozz wrote: (as usual)How frequent is 'as usual'? Who defines that? Ozz wrote: Was Christopher Columbus the first to reach the coasts of America? Not at all. But he's recognized as the one who discovered this whole new world....In fact, nowadays he's largely not. He's used exactly as you just have: as an example of someone who, instead of being the first, was the umpteenth person to reach the new continent. |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.04.2015 05:08 |
He didn't even reach the continent - never got beyond the Caribbean. |
| Sebastian 08.04.2015 09:44 |
All in all, comparing Queen to Columbus is offensive at best. It's largely been recognised that he did NOT discover the new world and there's a lot of controversy surrounding Columbus' day. It's even reached memetic mutation levels. link So maybe yeah, thinking Queen were the first to play in South America is as wrong as thinking Columbus was the first European to set foot in the Caribbean. These are some of my favourite memes about him: link link link link |
| cmsdrums 09.04.2015 04:03 |
Didn't Christopher Columbus circumcise the world in a forty-feet cutter?? (Sorry, I'll get my coat!!) |
| hobbit in Rhye 09.04.2015 13:40 |
Thank you for ruining my idolization, Sebastian. After your several correct-the-fact threads, now I know that Queen isn't the first, nor the best, in anything whatsoever. (That was a joke by the way. I'm grateful to your stats, though I'm not often agree with your point of view.) |
| Sebastian 13.04.2015 06:19 |
Point is, I take back what I said about comparing Queen to Columbus: it's not offensive at all, it's quite spot on indeed. What Columbus did wasn't by any means insignificant. He did not, however, discover the earth was round; he was not, either, the first to reach (islands located closely to) the new world. What Queen did in South America and Mexico wasn't by any means insignificant. They did some marvellous concerts which certainly influenced other acts and spread the interest in going to those territories and establishing a more direct contact with fan bases there. They were not, however, the first to go to Mexico and South America; they were not, either, the first to play in large venues in Mexico and South America; they were not, either, the first to have successful visits to Mexico and South America ... in fact, only their visits to South America were actually successful, as their trip to Mexico, according to Roger, 'was hell!' |
| Ozz 13.04.2015 20:48 |
That's all I've said. Not being the first does not mean that what they did was insignificant. And any person folowwing the development of local bands , "Rock Latino" as we called them back then, would see the huge Queen influence. But you tend to try to own the facts, when most of us, can give as best, just opinions, and correcting every single piece of paragraph does not help to build community and comunication.. Sheldon. Being a Queen fan, is what joins people's of different cultures and occupations here and everywhere on the net. I know I've been upset when I was younger by those groups of "greatest hits" fans as we called them, that they believed all sorts of untrue myths about the band, but does that really matter? I've read plenty of informative post of many people here that doesn't end up in trashing other's people's opinions. I've seen many confrontational topics where some legendary members of Qz just took time to talk about their facts and sources without being an ass about it. But when you grow up, you realize that all this mental masturbation it's useless. There's so much to learn and live out there. Queen wasn't the first, big deal. But no one can downplay what it meant back then, much less people from the other hemisphere where they had any band they wanted for decades. I'm willing to say that probably the only other bands that had a huge influence in SouthAmerica during the 80's were Kiss and Iron Maiden, and they came later. |
| Sebastian 14.04.2015 06:13 |
Ozz wrote: That's all I've said.No, that's not all. You said nitpicking was too much, which is ambiguous. You also said other things. Ozz wrote: Not being the first does not mean that what they did was insignificant.There we agree. Ozz wrote: But you tend to try to own the factsNo, I don't. Facts cannot be owned, anyway. Ozz wrote: when most of us, can give as best, just opinionsOpinions are very valuable, I'm not denying that. Certain things, however, are not a matter of opinion. Brian was born before Roger, full stop (assuming, of course, we all agree on what 'being born' and 'before' mean and assuming, of course, we all agree on which Brian and which Roger we're referring to). Ozz wrote: correcting every single piece of paragraphBut nobody's done that. From your current message, I didn't say anything on Queen's influence on Latin American bands. Just because of that, it's already not *every single piece of paragraph.* And that, by the way, it *not* an opinion. Either every single piece was corrected or not, and in this case, it was not, full stop. Ozz wrote: does not help to build community and comunicationActually, communication is built when people communicate. We're communicating, so it does help. Ozz wrote: Sheldon.I don't know what that has to do with this. Ozz wrote: Being a Queen fan, is what joins people's of different cultures and occupations here and everywhere on the net.Not really. People of different cultures and occupations can find many other common denominators other than fondness of the band. Ozz wrote: they believed all sorts of untrue myths about the band, but does that really matter?Well, yes. It doesn't need to matter to *you*, but maybe other people do care about those false myths. If you don't, don't read or take part of these threads, simple as that. I don't care about Freddie's relationships (unless they had some effect on his music or research about it, such as David Minn's comments on the rough mix of 'Bo Rhap' helping establishing a timeline and disproving the theory of a 24th of August start of the 'Opera' sessions). If there's a thread about Freddie's relationship to Tony Bastin, or Brian's relationship to Anita Dobson, or Roger's relationship to Debbie, or John being at a strip club, I generally refrain from reading or writing there, as it's none of my business. But I respect that, to other people, those things do matter. What I completely disagree with is going to a thread you allegedly don't care about and trying to persuade people not to care about it either. To your 'does it really matter', I reply: does it really matter that to some people it matters? Ozz wrote: I've read plenty of informative post of many people here that doesn't end up in trashing other's people's opinions.So have I. This thread, for instance, fulfils all those traits: it's informative, it's got many people's participation, and it doesn't end up trashing other people's opinions. Except on your post. Ozz wrote: But when you grow up, you realize that all this mental masturbation it's useless.Except that it's not mental masturbation, and it's not useless. Ozz wrote: There's so much to learn and live out there.That's very true, and one of the things you can learn is that if you think nitpicking is too much, it doesn't mean it's universally 'too much.' If you don't care other people believe false myths, it doesn't mean you're entitled to ask others not to care either. People are different. Ozz wrote: Queen wasn't the first, big deal.To some people, it is indeed a big deal. If it matters to you, it doesn't mean it will matter to everyone else, and viceversa. Ozz wrote: But no one can downplay what it meant back thenOf course they can. They'd be wrong to do so, but of course they can. Ozz wrote: I'm willing to say that probably the only other bands that had a huge influence in SouthAmerica during the 80's were Kiss and Iron Maiden, and they came later.But again, the concept of 'huge' is vague. |
| Mr.QueenFan 14.04.2015 17:23 |
I think this is a great topic, and last year i was about to open a thread like this one but only about the South American tour, so i really appreciate that you - Sebastian - took the time to research and post this information. Before i give my opinion i want to say that i like facts. Of course it's great to hear that Queen were huge in South America, but i don't think it's great to be misleaded by their marketing. Remember the Freddie's last vocal take was two weeks before he died? And the amount of discussions on this forum based on false claims by QP. I like to talk with music fans about statistics, and when i found out that i was wrong, misleaded by marketing team of QP or other, it makes me appreciate this threads even more. So, what i was going to post last year came when i was reading Julio Iglesias official site: link On the "Cronology" section, it reads: "1977- Beat the record in Chile for an audience where more than 100,000 people gathered for his concert held at the National Stadium in Santiago, a performance that was considered the largest musical event in history." (by the way, reading Julio Iglesias achievements puts many things into perspective when it comes to success. It's a great read!) Here's the Youtube video: link So, of course i was a bit angry when i read this because unlike what people say in documentaries, Queen were not the first foreign act to play a stadium in South America. Julio Iglesias is spanish and he did it before, and he could have easily sell-out any stadium in that territory. And because i love Queen, i want to be able to trust their team, but i have come to a point where i really don't care about what QP says anymore unless i hear it from Roger, Brian or John, who are not accurate sometimes, but i still trust that they say what they believe to be true (i.e. honest mistakes). P.S- Genesis in Portugal March 1975 link |
| Mr.QueenFan 14.04.2015 17:59 |
P.P.S- I just did a quick research and found out that Procol Harum performed in Portugal in 1973 - 24 and 25th of February. This was not usual because of the ditactorship regime that was in place until 25th April 1974. Here's a link (in Portuguese) link of some dates about bands that played the "Dramático de Cascais" that doesn't exist anymore. Well, the first (foreign) acts to play the "Dramático de Cascais" were Miles Davis, Keith Jarrett, Dexter Gordon, Ornette Coleman, Charlie Haden in the 20 th November 1971. Not that anyone is interested, but just in case :-) Oh, and before i forget, Maria Callas played Portugal in 1958, interpreting La Traviata. There's a CD of the performance and video evidence on Youtube. The only reason Queen never played Portugal in the eighties was probably the same reason they never returned to South America until Rock in Rio. The show was too extensive for people to afford if they wanted to make a profit. That's why i believe they weren't invited. They were Huge in Portugal, specially around 1984. It continues until today. The first Rock artist to play a Stadium in Portugal was the Rolling Stones in 10th July 1990- Estádio José de Alvalade. This opened up the doors for other artists to try stadiums in Portugal but unfortunately Queen weren't touring by then. |
| Sebastian 14.04.2015 18:13 |
Mr.QueenFan wrote: Before i give my opinion i want to say that i like facts.So do I, and it's quite illustrating to see how some people tend to feel so threatened by them, just like some people enjoy them as well. Just like the band's name is 'Queen' and not 'Kween' and the members are 'Freddie, Brian, John and Roger' instead of 'Freddy, Bryan, Jon and Rodger', there's nothing wrong with stating that Freddie did not win an Ivor Novello for 'Killer Queen', 'Bo Rhap' was not the first video ever, 'Another One Bites the Dust' might not have been the best selling record of 1980, Queen were not the first to play stadia in Mexico and South America, etc. Mr.QueenFan wrote: Queen were not the first foreign act to play a stadium in South America. Julio Iglesias is spanish and he did it beforeConsidering Mexico is not in South America, it's also worth checking if any Mexican act sold out any stadium in South America. Probably. |
| Sebastian 11.10.2015 06:36 |
We're having Columbus day tomorrow... and that reminded me of this thread. |
| The King Of Rhye 11.10.2015 15:15 |
Thanksgiving tomorrow too, for the Canadians out there at least. ;) |
| Sebastian 08.02.2016 11:05 |
Good times. |
