| MercurialFreddie 04.04.2016 09:04 |
Hi ! Can anyone shed some light on that incident ? link "In Queen: The Early Years, there's a story from somebody who had worked with Queen at a show in Manchester: "Queen had just taken the stage, and this bloke shouted to Freddie, 'You fucking poof". Freddie demanded that the crew turn the spotlight on the crowd and find this fella. He then said to him, 'Say that again, darling,' and the bloke didn't know what to do. I saw him literally shrink this six-foot bloke down to an inch." Cheers, Martin |
| mooghead 04.04.2016 12:31 |
It was me... he shrunk me down to 10 inches and used me in a way that still gives me nightmares.. :/ |
| Nitroboy 04.04.2016 13:08 |
Well, it must have been either of the 2 Manchester '79 shows, considering we didn't hear Freddie saying that on the recordings of Manchester '73 or '75? |
| musicland munich 04.04.2016 14:38 |
mooghead wrote: It was me... he shrunk me down to 10 inches and used me in a way that still gives me nightmares.. :/Wishful thinking...eh ? |
| tomchristie22 05.04.2016 04:38 |
Some of the comments in that thread are a pretty stark reminder of how much Queen listeners are pretty much divided into binary opposite camps - on one hand, those who are fully invested and know at least the majority of their discography. On the other, those who know the hits and that's it, while generally upholding Freddie Mercury as some infallible figure (while not really understanding or appreciating the depth of his ability), often times spouting the same old superficial wisdom or general misconceptions. It's a strange dichotomy and there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. For instance, it's a shame to see how many people think Wembley 86 is the absolute pinnacle of Queen as a live band. Hopefully the 70s releases are changing that a little, but it's pretty well engrained by now. Freddie being hailed as a great 'showman', with less regard for his outstanding songwriting, is another frustration. I think it's often motivated by underlying bigotry - unable to outright deny the importance and impact of such a well-loved figure, but unwilling to directly acknowledge his talent, they resort to a faint and dismissive praise which mainly focuses on his ability to strut around on stage. |
| Saif 05.04.2016 07:42 |
tomchristie22 wrote: Some of the comments in that thread are a pretty stark reminder of how much Queen listeners are pretty much divided into binary opposite camps - on one hand, those who are fully invested and know at least the majority of their discography. On the other, those who know the hits and that's it, while generally upholding Freddie Mercury as some infallible figure (while not really understanding or appreciating the depth of his ability), often times spouting the same old superficial wisdom or general misconceptions. It's a strange dichotomy and there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. For instance, it's a shame to see how many people think Wembley 86 is the absolute pinnacle of Queen as a live band. Hopefully the 70s releases are changing that a little, but it's pretty well engrained by now. Freddie being hailed as a great 'showman', with less regard for his outstanding songwriting, is another frustration. I think it's often motivated by underlying bigotry - unable to outright deny the importance and impact of such a well-loved figure, but unwilling to directly acknowledge his talent, they resort to a faint and dismissive praise which mainly focuses on his ability to strut around on stage.Why do you think that? Almost everyone over the age of 13 knows who Freddie Mercury was. He is just as often hailed as a great singer too. Bohemian Rhapsody is still considered one of the greatest songs ever and people know he wrote it. So I don't see people being dismissive of his ability. Maybe most people make the judgments based on a smaller corpus of his work, but that doesn't disqualify their opinions and not having heard everything by Queen hardly makes life meaningless. Queen is more popular than ever, possibly the most popular classic rock band while Freddie is certainly one of the three, if not singular, most admired figures of that age. |
| tomchristie22 05.04.2016 09:25 |
I'm probably generalising and projecting based on my own negative experiences - lots of young men in Australia who I've encountered have a thinly veiled homophobia about Queen. |
| Costa86 05.04.2016 09:56 |
I had read this anecdote before, a few years ago - can't remember where. Actually it might have been in this Rolling Stone article link I have no doubt that Freddie was capable of reducing most men to an inch in size. Apart from being supremely talented, intelligent, and having an air of complete confidence in himself, he was also capable of being very serious and stern if he felt aggrieved. Or at least that's what people who know him and most of his biographies say. |
| Sebastian 05.04.2016 10:02 |
Regarding the alleged Manchester anecdote: it could easily be true, it could easily be false. That's the thing with witness testimonies (or alleged witness testimonies). People can lie, misremember or have accurate recollection and there's no way to tell the difference without evidence (e.g. a bootleg) to confirm or deny any claim. Regarding Freddie's current public perception: the fact he died over two decades ago has certainly nourished certain 'mystique' and he's certainly largely respected as a singer and entertainer, but I agree he's not too often hailed for his abilities as composer or arranger, let alone producer. But that happens to loads of people: Michael Jackson wrote about that on his autobiography ... people would ask him about who had 'really' written some of his songs and that was quite disappointing. |
| MercurialFreddie 05.04.2016 10:53 |
In the Freddie Mercury : The Great Pretender docu, Brian says that he above else was a rock god. General audience would define this term as: wonderful performer, excellent singer but composer, song-writer, producer ? nah... Making Days of Our Lives docu was too a great opportunity to present Freddie's skills in context of the strength of band's musicianship. If I recall correctly, this was discussed only in the "extras" section of TDOUL documentary. So the accident did not happen at neither of the following Manchester gigs: 86', 75' or 73'. Is there a possibility that it did not happen at that particular venue. It is also strange that we've heard about it only recently. Stopping the show, and taking the time to order the lightning crew to direct the light at that awful person and responding to said person was not that short accident to not remember it. It is something really extraordinary and how come that only one person came forward and shared this recollection ? |
| musicland munich 05.04.2016 11:23 |
tomchristie22 wrote: For instance, it's a shame to see how many people think Wembley 86 is the absolute pinnacle of Queen as a live band.QP worked really hard on that myth I have to let you know ;) Pretty different opinions I guess....for me 8/ 10 Queen Fans knowing exactly that the guys were at their prime ( live-wise) from the mid to the late 70's. |
| Martin Packer 05.04.2016 11:40 |
86 is "biggest" but not necessarily "best". My "best" for them is Dec 10, 1980 - Wembley Arena. But then again I suspect FOR MY TASTE Crazy Tour would've been the pinnacle. And FOR OTHERS' TASTE yet other tours. |
| Doga 05.04.2016 17:20 |
musicland munich wrote:This.tomchristie22 wrote: For instance, it's a shame to see how many people think Wembley 86 is the absolute pinnacle of Queen as a live band.QP worked really hard on that myth I have to let you know ;) Why they picked Wembley over Nepstadion as the iconic release is a mystery . The latter is superior in every aspect, including band performance and cinematrography. |
| Sebastian 06.04.2016 09:36 |
Doga wrote: Why they picked Wembley over Nepstadion as the iconic release is a mysteryNot so much. Queen are far more popular in their native Britain than anywhere else (perhaps Netherlands are rivalling Albion in that department), so it makes sense that their signature live release is at the quintessential British football stadium ... or, more to the point, English (I very much doubt they'll ever officially release a concert in Wales or Scotland and they never played in Northern Ireland). |
| Biggus Dickus 06.04.2016 12:34 |
Sebastian wrote:And also they didn't have all of the Budapest show on film. The thing I find annoying with Budapest is the lack of several songs in full and the editing of some other tracks. At least both Wembley shows were filmed in full.Doga wrote: Why they picked Wembley over Nepstadion as the iconic release is a mysteryNot so much. Queen are far more popular in their native Britain than anywhere else (perhaps Netherlands are rivalling Albion in that department), so it makes sense that their signature live release is at the quintessential British football stadium ... or, more to the point, English (I very much doubt they'll ever officially release a concert in Wales or Scotland and they never played in Northern Ireland). |
| BETA215 06.04.2016 12:44 |
^ It happens that the edit it's actually the same edit as in the VHS version. After the concert was filmed, the footage was edited and the rest went into the bin (Budapest government responsibility). Now, with more technology, formats and resources, the same film was rescanned (which contains the same footage) in 1080p. But they can't recover the lost footage. And that's when the 16 cameras version (of this same concert, without overdubs and uncut) gain relevancy. |
| ParisNair 07.04.2016 11:44 |
BETA215 wrote: ^ It happens that the edit it's actually the same edit as in the VHS version. After the concert was filmed, the footage was edited and the rest went into the bin (Budapest government responsibility). Now, with more technology, formats and resources, the same film was rescanned (which contains the same footage) in 1080p. But they can't recover the lost footage. And that's when the 16 cameras version (of this same concert, without overdubs and uncut) gain relevancy.I read that the Budapest govt had asked Queen if they would like to purchase the whole tape and Queen declined. And only then the govt binned it. This was in the 80s, if I recall correctly what I read. |
| Chief Mouse 07.04.2016 11:58 |
^ I recall someone saying that it was around the time of Made In Heaven. |
| BETA215 07.04.2016 22:09 |
What's sure, is that: "This [the 2012 edition] was still the same edit as the 1987 release, as MaFilm allegedly discarded the footage that didn't make it past the cutting room floor. All Queen Productions could do was clean up the film and do a new audio mix." From QueenLive.ca If what you say it's truth, and given the fact that the film was so beautifully recorded, that's one of their bundle of stupid decisions. |
| Doga 08.04.2016 04:18 |
I specifically remember reading here the unused negatives of film were offered to Queen at some point in the 90's but they didn't want them and were destroyed in Hungary. And if that's true i call that a stupid mistake, too. It was also a crazy story of how the salvage the negatives of the original cut thanks to a fan, no? Or maybe i'm mixing stories? |
| Mr.QueenFan 08.04.2016 06:26 |
Doga wrote: I specifically remember reading here the unused negatives of film were offered to Queen at some point in the 90's but they didn't want them and were destroyed in Hungary. And if that's true i call that a stupid mistake, too. It was also a crazy story of how the salvage the negatives of the original cut thanks to a fan, no? Or maybe i'm mixing stories?Offered? Nah! It probably cost money and that's why they (Jim cough! cough!) declined. But it's always the same thing. If we ask why a certain Queen performance wasn't included in a DVD they reply :"Do you guys know how much that TV performance would cost?". Like Queen aren't one of the most successful bands in music history. And yet ABBA are releasing DVD's full of TV performances around the world - including the USA TV- in their album reissues. There's a reason why Queen products aren't selling as much as expected - their bonuses are jokes! Just compare the Deluxe editions of Queen's 2011 reissues with ABBA reissues : link Considering that they cost the same - around 20€ at a music store - it's understandable why we don't buy the Queen "deluxe" Cd's. What is sad for me is that Queen used their second Cd on the reissues series to market and upsell past and future releases - like Wembley, BBC sessions, or the Queen boxset of Demos. And that goes against the spirit of a second Cd in a reissue album. Probably amongst the worst reissues i've seen from an artist. And it's sad, because Queen are one of the most successful artists of all time. They have the resources to do better! Now with Budapest is the same thing. It is not certaing that the extra footage was destroyed. Most probably it was not destroyed! Jim Beach didn't authorize extra research for the extra footage to be found at the time of the new DVD/BluRay release. Once again, not everything was made to give the fans the absolute best product they could get, because in the end it would cost some extra €uros to track that footage down or even some more money compensation for the person who has it. |