| Sebastian 18.07.2015 05:21 |
Author: Larry Pryce First Published: 1976 ISBN: 0 35239746 2 This was the first, as it’s obvious from the title, ‘official biography’ of the band, commissioned by John Reid Management and by then Fan Club secretaries Pat & Sue. It was the first published biography of a music act by Larry Pryce (he’d previously published a book about an American film), and the result is quite interesting. Pryce interviewed plenty of people for this book, including all four band members plus their main producer, engineer, outfit designers, accountants, people from the record label, their support act and a couple of individuals from Capital Radio. It’s quite interesting to see what they thought and said at the time, before the Queen phenomenon blew up and they became shrouded in myth. Some stories are far more realistic than the spectacular hyperboles they later on turned into, but the opposite happens as well as the book makes some claims that were good press but which we now know were not quite accurate. It’s divided in fourteen chapters and plants the seeds for the stories that would be told to death from then on: the homemade guitar (in those days it wasn’t referred to as ‘the Red Special,’ that would come much later), Smile, De Lane Lea, Zanzibar, India, Ealing College, Imperial College, Kensington Market, Trident, hepatitis, Japanese fans, Kenny Everett playing ‘Bo Rhap’ on his radio programme four times over the weekend (yes, four, not four-teen). Not so much is said about the songs, unfortunately, other than some quotes by the band members about ‘Good Company,’ ‘The Prophet’s Song,’ ‘Killer Queen’, ‘Now I’m Here’ and, very briefly, ‘The March of the Black Queen’ (a comment he actually copied from elsewhere but which is a nice read). But even those songs are only discussed for a paragraph, tops, while the entire fifth chapter is about ‘The Man from Manhattan.’ It does include several anecdotes about it and it does give a good insight on Frederick's musicianship, but Queen had released 47 tracks by then and it would’ve made far more sense to document the story of any of those instead. Since those were the days before google and on-line communities where us nerds can swiftly verify, discuss and, as a result, be as polished and pedantic as possible about little details, the author and/or his sources had no problem in sensationalising wherever possible: chapter one says the debut album had been completed eighteen months before its release (which would mean they had it ready by January 1971), but then chapter four claims by November 1972 they had ‘only’ two thirds of it. The book also states some inaccuracies about John (his birthplace and how many bass players had been in the band before him), Roger (it says he sang all the high notes, which he didn’t, though he did many of those of course), Frederick (it alleges he won an Ivor for ‘Killer Queen’ when he actually was a runner-up), and mostly Brian; according to the book, he’d built the guitar on his own (no mention of his dad’s crucial involvement), he had no spares at all (and had rejected the Birch replica) and he already had a PhD (perhaps they assumed he would’ve completed it by the time the book was released, but it actually took him three decades longer than that). A couple of timelines are wrong as well: chapter two says Queen II was recorded while Brian was ill with hepatitis, chapter one says the band’s video (implied to be ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’) was shot just before the American tour, and chapter ten says ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ had been number one for ten weeks (er, actually, it was nine!). Fans of gears and instrument makes and all that would like the bits where the author lists Roger’s drum kit items (chapter one) and John’s main rig (chapter nine), but nothing is said about pianos, acoustic guitars, microphones or additional instruments. Something’s said about Brian’s AC-30’s and obviously about his guitar but nothing else. Michael Stone reveals Frederick was quite reliant on the limiter in the studio because of his sibilance (whether that got corrected later on or not is out of my league at the moment) and Roy mentions he used a gadget (but doesn’t mention which one) for the ‘assss’ effect on ‘Two Legs’. Speaking of… chapter ten has Norman Sheffield’s side of the story. The problems between the band and the record company were mentioned quite discretely and without sensationalising, so kudos to Larry Pryce for a very good piece of journalism there. It’s worth mentioning, though, that it might have been out of convenience on both sides: Queen had recently been sued by the Sheffield Brothers so it did them no good in adding offensive comments towards them, and Trident were at the time trying to cash in on the band’s growing success by releasing Rainbow (something that wouldn’t happen until 2014, by another label of course), so the more diplomatic they referred to their split-up the better. Animosity towards the press was already evident that early into their career, as was the noteworthy focus on Frederick. The book begins by placing the reader at Sarm Studios, then Michael Stone speaks briefly about the first album and then he goes on to praise Frederick. More comments from follow about how exceptional Frederick was as a musician: Edward Howell in chapter five, Michael Stone in chapter seven (and he says some really nice things about Frederick’s piano playing) and Kenny Everett on chapter twelve. The others’ musicianship is also praised, but not nearly as much. Influences are only brought up for Roger (Bonham, of course), Frederick (Hendrix and Liza, and absolutely no mention of Paul Rodgers) and the band as a whole (The Who and Led Zeppelin, obviously). Interestingly enough, the book also claims Roger was actually the most ambitious and the one who used to provoke most arguments, something a lot of sources would ignore for decades until some more recent ones finally gave him back that more ‘hands-on’ position. John was already the band’s financial brain so there are some comments about that, and about the four distinct personalities they displayed. Interesting that their accountant at the time described Brian as ‘probably quite keen politically’ (chapter nine). For those who are familiar with Brian’s animal rights campaigns and his Soapbox, it’s nice to see how eloquent, crafty and philosophical he already was in his late twenties. The way he compares and contrasts Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack on chapter eight is quite thought-provoking. Another point of interest is seeing what they’d been planning and thinking back in early 1976: Freddie was considering writing a musical, John was already foreseeing they’d need to become tax exiles if their income kept growing, and the idea of producing an album without Roy Baker was at the time rather unthinkable… that would obviously change a few months afterwards but they didn’t know it then. For those who are into etymology, there’s an off-hand comment from Zandra Rhodes in chapter three: ‘I only enjoy pop music if it’s someone I can recognise, for example the Stones or Queen.’ That reflects how, in the middle 70’s (in London, at least), the ‘pop’ genre was considered to cover people as diverse as Queen and the Stones, neither of whom would be considered ‘pop’ by the current (21st century) usage of the term, which is more related to One Direction or Ariana Grande. To this day, plenty of Queen fans get upset if someone refers to them as a ‘pop’ band. Talk about random berserk buttons… It’s also good to see the way some stories used to be told before they became twisted and affected by the broken-telephone phenomenon: Michael Stone clearly states (chapter one) that the debut album took ages to be mixed (which means it was not the low-budget project it’s usually portrayed as) and Roy says (chapter four) that Queen actually won over the audience at Sunbury (so, according to this eye witness, they were not booed off the stage). |
| hobbit in Rhye 18.07.2015 05:30 |
Thank you for the review, Sebastian. Good to know what's correct and what's not in the book. At least they got it right about BoRhap played 4 times on that radio. Norman Sheffield’s side of the story would be welcomed too (I wonder if it's different from the article I saw on media). Next step we'll have to verify what's correct and what's not in your review, but that's not an easy task ;) About the pop etymology, perhaps nowadays pop is infested with teen pop so the "pop" concept was dragged down, and rock domain just like to exile itself from the mother category. Not that it matters much to me. Names and all. On a side note, about how transcript can twist the content, just look at Brian's short speech at NASA's Pluto press conf: " Hear me -Probably not? I'm the guy. I'm one of those people in Europe whose been following your every moves on our laptops and TVs, in our offices, in our bedrooms. It's a thrill to be here with you and what an amazing achievement. You have inspired the world. Thank you." First time I read it, I was puzzled. Did Brian try to put the limelight on himself? "I am the guy"?? "Hear me"?? But if you watch the press conf's video he was just stumbling after the mic problem. That's why I always prefer to hear/watch things directly, and we should be very careful with third party information, even direct transcripts. Seb, could you elaborate more on "The way he compares and contrasts Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack on chapter eight is quite thought-provoking", please? Thought-provoking on a positive side, or on a crafty side? |
| Sebastian 18.07.2015 09:43 |
'On it there's all the stuff that was on Queen II but instead of it being vertically layered it's spread out horizontally. A lot of the musical ideas of treatments are the same on the two al¬bums. On Sheer Heart Attack they come at you one at a time making it an easier album to assimilate. You can listen to it and get a lot out of it the first time, simply because there is one thing at a time happening. The title was Roger's idea.' |
| YourValentine 19.07.2015 04:06 |
Nice work, as always, Seb. The pop music comment by ZR is easy to explain. In the 70s people who were not involved in music still divided music into classical and popular music. Pop music was the current popular music which was playing on the radio all day. ZR probably was referring to ALL non-classical music on the radio which she did not like unless it was recognisable for her. Which only proves she had no clue about music, at all. |
| Planetgurl 19.07.2015 09:39 |
Absolutely and just to add, ZR once described herself as a complete philistine and really only listened to BBC Radio 4... |
| hobbit in Rhye 19.07.2015 13:26 |
Thanks Sebastian. That's a gem of comparison for Queen II and SHA. Although, there is The Loser in the End which didn't really fit into the White side no matter vertically or horizontally. |
| The Real Wizard 20.07.2015 17:43 |
Sebastian wrote: It’s worth mentioning, though, that it might have been out of convenience on both sides: Queen had recently been sued by the Sheffield Brothers so it did them no good in adding offensive comments towards them, and Trident were at the time trying to cash in on the band’s growing success by releasing Rainbow (something that wouldn’t happen until 2014, by another label of course), so the more diplomatic they referred to their split-up the better.So perhaps it was when this lawsuit was finally dealt with that Freddie was able to speak about their old manager on stage when introducing Death On Two Legs - late 1978. |
| Daniel Nester 20.07.2015 19:49 |
"and absolutely no mention of Paul Rodgers." OK then. That's settled. Listen -- we know this book, like most rock bios is a "clip job" bio, right? Original interviews far outnumbered buy magazine articles, right? |
| Penetration_Guru 21.07.2015 16:01 |
I was unaware that the Sunbury audience were ever claimed as not being won over? My recollection is that they were always claimed to have won over the audience, only to be then manipulated out of the encore by the compere. |
| Sebastian 22.07.2015 02:47 |
There's at least one claim to the contrary and, allegedly, a witness recollection. |
| Martin Packer 22.07.2015 03:40 |
Radio 4 listeners aren't philistines (though no doubt Radio 3 listeners think they are). :-) |
| Sebastian 07.05.2016 23:45 |
Bumped. |
| AlbaNo1 08.05.2016 13:24 |
Daniel Nester wrote: "and absolutely no mention of Paul Rodgers." OK then. That's settled. Listen -- we know this book, like most rock bios is a "clip job" bio, right? Original interviews far outnumbered buy magazine articles, right?Does the other book mention Paul Rodgers. I definitely read one bio written in the 70s that mentioned Freddie used to go and watch Free in his spare time. |
| Sebastian 08.05.2016 15:43 |
Bring it in. If there's evidence, I'll happily stand corrected. Otherwise, I'll keep saying it: Frederick having admired Paul makes a lot of sense; Paul having been Frederick's favourite singer sounds more like a marketing ploy. |