QueenZone discussion #1584030

philip storey wrote: I must admit it is a joke at the sort of crap they are selling at the moment Brian and Roger will do anything to make money.However ask about a "Live Killers Box Set" and its a different story ,"we don't have the time ,they cry".No and why is that because they are touring their Greatest Hits with that in my opinion joke of a singer.It's about time people on this site actually manned up a bit.Adam Lambert is not in the top 1000 rock singers.Freddie Mercury is the greatest showman and rock singer of all time,number 1.Freddie made Queen,Smile were going nowhere until Freddie came along and he turned them into something amazing.Another thing I want to get off my chest is the film,it made Roger and Brian look like saints,it put Freddie as the bad guy.The bit where RT and BM left Freddie's party saying its not our scene is a joke,they liked a good drug ,alcohol bash just as much as Freddie did.The crowning glory was when Brian,John and Roger let Freddie rejoin the band!! What were the three of them going to do ,give Paul Rodgers a ring to see if he was available.John was right in what he did and I respect him for that ,I am afraid we are left with a bloody shambles.I have said my bit,no doubt all the AL fans will say how great he is and its what Freddie would have wanted,i am afraid you are wrong.Queen died on that awful day when Freddie Mercury passed away.

philip storey wrote: Iam not interested if the general public like the show or not ,the fan's who were there at the beginning,do not like it and don't go.

philip storey wrote: I must admit it is a joke at the sort of crap they are selling at the moment Brian and Roger will do anything to make money.However ask about a "Live Killers Box Set" and its a different story ,"we don't have the time ,they cry".No and why is that because they are touring their Greatest Hits with that in my opinion joke of a singer.It's about time people on this site actually manned up a bit.Adam Lambert is not in the top 1000 rock singers.Freddie Mercury is the greatest showman and rock singer of all time,number 1.Freddie made Queen,Smile were going nowhere until Freddie came along and he turned them into something amazing.Another thing I want to get off my chest is the film,it made Roger and Brian look like saints,it put Freddie as the bad guy.The bit where RT and BM left Freddie's party saying its not our scene is a joke,they liked a good drug ,alcohol bash just as much as Freddie did.The crowning glory was when Brian,John and Roger let Freddie rejoin the band!! What were the three of them going to do ,give Paul Rodgers a ring to see if he was available.John was right in what he did and I respect him for that ,I am afraid we are left with a bloody shambles.I have said my bit,no doubt all the AL fans will say how great he is and its what Freddie would have wanted,i am afraid you are wrong.Queen died on that awful day when Freddie Mercury passed away.

Makka wrote: You do realise these are things they would be approached to do, not something they would instigate? They are in a lucky position to be offered these things. Bands don't make money from music anymore, they make it from touring and from merch so it's another outlet to make money whilst they can. And to be honest, if I was in their shoes I'd be running with the money too. They were part of the musics creation so why not?

philip storey wrote: Cheers MMRunner ,its about time these deluded Q&AL fan's were told the truth.I remember being a 11year old boy ,playing Queen 1 non stop and being so proud to being a Queen fan.When I was old enough I remember going to the NEC and seeing them live ,god it was the most awesome thing I had ever seen.10,000 fans standing which was a record at the time for a standing indoor concert.My friends all know that I am a Queen fan and often ask who is the singer when I mention AL they look blank and ask who he is.There is so much Brian and Roger could have done after Freddie's passing,working on the music they had already made,giving us a album with the two of them doing it under their own names,not a Queen album.Solo work,albums,small tours but not using the Queen name.Some great Box sets and of course the Anthology which we would all like if it was done well.I fear that things are not going to change as Maylor are money mad and blindly think that AL is fantastic,the Queen legacy is being dragged through the gutter and it hurts like hell.

Vocal harmony wrote: Hate to say it but this view is so deluded it could have been posted by Gerry. Relesing box sets could also be seen as a money crab, that was your view of NOTW box wasn't it? Like any major act they are tied to a record company who want to make what they can out of an artist, like it or not it's an industry that goes beyond the art of making music. Go to any gig of any size by anyone and there'll be a merchbstand selling vastly inflated T shirts, Hoodies, Beanie hats, drum sticks, programs, cd's cups etc etc, the list goes on ano on. It's how it is. You don't have to buy into any of it. . . It's not just this band. So what they haven't recorded an album, I can guaranty if they did and they played half a dozen new songs people would be shouting about the lack of old hits. Fleetwood Mac haven't released anything for years, but they still tour , Same as King Crimson and others. So what, people enjoy going. Your experience of going to see Q+AL was not good, you didn't like the venue, the show the transport. . . If everyone had that view they'd be playing to empty venues. They play to huge numbers of old fans as well as new ones and Adam Lambert fans, so what. People enjoy the gigs. The amount of moaning about them does nothing, you achieve nothing by it. You certainly don't stop people going and your criticism of what they do was loud and clear after the gig you went too.

Man from Zanzibar wrote: Meh, who cares. They are milking money off the sheep willing to spend top dollar on the BS merch and stuff like that. Don't waste your money. I'd much prefer them releasing the juicy material from the Queen Vault, while working on their solo projects or Brian+Roger collab thing ("SMILE"). But it seems that the creative spirit left them when Freddie passed away and John later retired (sadly, looks like The Cosmos Rocks was their last breath). Yes they didn't want to be another "Journey" and play with a soundalike, but at least Journey put out several albums with new music since Steve Perry left. At least half the people if not more go to QAL concerts just to see May and Taylor again. Yes, the average Joe the Ignorant just wants top 10 hits and a can of cold beer, but the real fans would much rather pay good money to see them play the deep cuts of Queen and / or their solo stuff combined. But that will NEVER happen, Maylor's gonna collect their paper and retire first. End of story.

flash00. wrote: Ah the old Queen tat some is absolute hilarious but I agree it's all over priced rubbish I remember that shocking rip-off teapot, Maylor must be pissing themselves laughing when they look at that crap. All the music is cheaper on Amazon anyway, I never go on Queen online or their kerching store. I have nothing against Al whatsoever except he's a drag queen fronting a rock band and the more famous he gets the worse he gets with it, he looked ridiculous in those big Elvis/Elton goggles at the press conference, most puzzling. The movie looked low budget for such a huge legendary band, also the weird Freddie being sacked and begging for his job back, which never happened, who's idea was that. I have a feeling they are close to not touring again, I could be wrong.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: With regards to the movie isn't obvious that Brian and Roger said they only gave approval of the movie because they were worried that if they hadn't then other people would've done it without their say what so ever. Just imagine if they made a movie than just concentrated on the negativity of the band, that won't've been good from any prospective. Both Brian and Roger have said that they didn't have as much control over the movie they would've liked - it was down to the production companies. Several interviews prove this and their only credits was as executive music producers. Majority means to the millions of people who have been to see them live and have been hugely satisfied by the experience. I know not everyone likes AL but haters please don't make it out like every Queen fan hates him because it can be proven otherwise - personal opinions like this and pretending that it's the general view is incredibly selfish IMO. In terms of money, Q+AL don't make a fortune from touring as claimed by haters - a coincidence? As we should all know, Q+AL played their biggest American tour last year and yet didn't make the top grossing tours list (source: https://www.kerrang.com/the-news/metallica-and-kiss-amongst-the-highest-grossing-tours-of-2019/). Why? It's because they simply don't sell tickets as high as others. With this means they also don't make as profit per show as some artists due to their expensive stage equipment, extravagant design and large crew. It's been a well-known fact by Queen themselves that non of their tours until the Magic '86 made any money due to the amount they were putting in. It's different now as you have to make money as touring is the main income for artists now due to technology advances. I just hate it when fans say a personal dislike and make it look like it's the general opinion by everyone. At the end of the day if you love Queen but are a constant moaner at everything they do, remember you're a fan (maybe because of their music, their talents etc.) and stop bickering at them because it won't make any difference and it also shows signs that you are not a 100% devoted fan.

Holly2003 wrote: For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie. Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans. Don't believe everything you read. ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time.

snifflese wrote: So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.

Makka wrote: You do realise these are things they would be approached to do, not something they would instigate? They are in a lucky position to be offered these things. Bands don't make money from music anymore, they make it from touring and from merch so it's another outlet to make money whilst they can. And to be honest, if I was in their shoes I'd be running with the money too. They were part of the musics creation so why not?

Vocal harmony wrote: Like any major act they are tied to a record company who want to make what they can out of an artist, like it or not it's an industry that goes beyond the art of making music. Go to any gig of any size by anyone and there'll be a merchbstand selling vastly inflated T shirts, Hoodies, Beanie hats, drum sticks, programs, cd's cups etc etc, the list goes on ano on. It's how it is. You don't have to buy into any of it. . . It's not just this band.

Dim wrote: I don't want to be devil's advocate but record companies are making money from concerts, ridiculously shit products, compilations albums you name it. The artists have been paid in advance and give their approve to whatever....

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: I just hate it when fans say a personal dislike and make it look like it's the general opinion by everyone.

PrimeJiveUSA wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie. Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans. Don't believe everything you read. ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time.

Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then. Nowadays the exact opposite is true.

Holly2003 wrote:

PrimeJiveUSA wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: For any Queen movie to be made Brian, Roger and John would have to give permission for their music to be included. So they essentially had a veto over that. Without Queen music there would be no Queen movie. Queen CLAIMED they never made a profit on touring. That doesn't mean it's true. There are all sorts of ways accountants can show no profit, while their clients coin it in. The band's comments were directed as much at the taxman as they were fans. Don't believe everything you read. ps I've been to 2 Queen concerts, one Brian May solo concert, and one Q+PR concert. I've been buying Queen stuff since 1981. But I'm no longer a 100% devoted fan. You're young. I understand. You'll understand too after being a fan for a long time.

Back when Queen were touring with Freddie it was rare for tours to be profitable...for most artists. Bands like the Stones were an exception and they were able to charge much higher than their peers in the 70's 80's and beyond. Back then, the purpose of the tours was to sell albums. A tour was just as expensive(adjusted for inflation) as it is now but tickets were also MUCH cheaper(even taking inflation into account). I've read many books about the music industry in the 70's and 80's and it was rare for artists to make a profit from concerts...their purpose was PROMOTIONAL as the money was in RECORD SALES back then. Nowadays the exact opposite is true.

While the primary intent of Queen tours was to support album releases, that doesn't equate to tours not also making a profit. Unless you have access to the contracts, financial statements etc, and you also know what tricks accountants can pull to hide profits, then you really aren't in a position to take Queen's statements about non-profitable tours at face value. Re: Rolling Stones, despite numerous tours and hit records the Stones were broke in 1969. So they changed their business model for their 1969 US tour. They started making money not because of higher ticket prices (general sale ticket prices were equivalent to other contemporary rock bands, although they were one of the first to start charging higher prices for VIP seats) but because they insisted in getting a higher fee from promoters, to be paid up front. Not all bands toured to promote records: after Woodstock the band Ten Years After did 27 American tours in just 7 years. During that time they only released five albums. They toured not just to promote albums but because there was huge demand for their live shows. Hendrix was the same: after Monterey he was asking $50,000 per appearance, regardless of whether he was promoting a record release. It was possible to make money from touring, from record release, from merchandising etc. It's not necessarily one or the other.

snifflese wrote: So I guess they are not all that greedy when it comes to ticket prices and such!! There appear to be a lot more greedy folks out there! Foiled again, Runner, spouting all that fake news just because you don't like them. You also have to take into account the quality of the concert with all their terrific lights and videos and sound system. Brian said they were using the most advanced light system there was and I believe it, because it was amazing. You don't get a bare bones show like with some artists. You get your money's worth when you see QAL as they do it up to the nines! It is a feast for both the eyes and the ears, truly! I haven't seen anyone complain about ticket prices except on here. Most of the folks feels they got their money's worth and for me, it was more than my money's worth. Their shows are the best I have ever seen in every way.

snifflese wrote: Listen you cretin, you pick the only shows that are not really full yet. Every tour so far has been fairly close to sold out or sold out for all practical purposes. The US tour was sold out, this time around Korea is sold out, as is Japan and Australia. Europe I don't know, but I read somewhere there were not many seats left even in Germany. The first 5 shows in the UK are pretty much sold out, so you can't pick the outlier which is what you always do. It is 5 MOS OUT and I am sure they will be full when we get there. As to the second part, I have no clue what that even means. I don't see that in my post. You are the idiot always trying to outdo everyone with your asinine statements and faulty logic and your misguided opinions. You are an absolute joke on here and I wouldn't be proud of it, if I were you. You are the nastiest piece of work I have ever had the misfortune to find on a forum. Now aren't you proud of yourself? That is probably all you have to be proud about in your sick little world. Stupid is what you are and crude, nasty, bigoted and an absolute dickwad. Hopefully, you get the message! So, DO you notice something? Apart from the obvious that you are plain stupid???

snifflese wrote: You can be honest without using words like cunt and some of the extremely offensive things that he says. I am not surprised at all that you would find him honest. I totally disagree with you as he is a person with no boundaries and as ugly as they come. He is just on here to cause problems and keep the rest of us from having a pleasant discussion. His only purpose is to offend and disrupt.

snifflese wrote: You can be honest without using words like cunt and some of the extremely offensive things that he says. I am not surprised at all that you would find him honest. I totally disagree with you as he is a person with no boundaries and as ugly as they come. He is just on here to cause problems and keep the rest of us from having a pleasant discussion. His only purpose is to offend and disrupt.

CM wrote: It is so sad they have spent 10 years being a GH jukebox. No dear Brian, Freddie would not be proud, just too bored. Tell old Fred to tour his old hits for that long. No more albums, no more songs, just new expensive lights and shinny jackets. They got a great new singer and they just waste their energy. You know what Brian? Cosmos Rocks is a perfect master piece compared to your Queen + Adam Lambert albums. Your zero new songs can not equal the bunch of tracks you wrote and recorded with Paul. By the way Brian, no problem if you spend another 10 years playing hits and selling watches. You guys can not be less fresh and creative than you already are.

snifflese wrote: I guess you must be feeling better since you are on here again, glad to see that!!

snifflese wrote: Icy, I am not being a hypocrite. I don't want to get into a big fight with you again, so I will merely say that you bring out the worst in Caroline. She never says things like that to anyone else. You are always on her criticizing and goading her. You can be perfectly pleasant with others and I do appreciate that and some of your kind words to me, but you don't act like that with her. We will just leave it there. Runner is nice to no one and his language and how he says things is not appropriate. I guess you must be feeling better since you are on here again, glad to see that!!

Saint Jiub wrote:

snifflese wrote: I guess you must be feeling better since you are on here again, glad to see that!!

Yes she has some spunk now ... which might not be a bad thing for a c*nt. link

snifflese wrote: Icy, your arguments are with Caroline and I don't want to get into that. Maybe we could just try to get along and just ignore the rest of it. How you get along with her has nothing to do with me and I choose not to comment about it anymore. I don't wish to argue with you either. I am so sorry that you are feeling so poorly, but glad that got a laugh out of you. If you can laugh, it can't all be bad! Take care and I hope you start getting better quickly!!

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: FUCKING HELL, it's several posters on this forum who started this debacle off on sections of the site. I'm not going to name anyone but if people kept their personal opinions of Q+AL to themselves or started a new forum to talk about their personal negative opinions then there would've no insults in the first place. It seems Caroline was posting on here doing what she loves and all it took for one person to say I don't like that to turn into I hate you, you are fucking awful person, which obviously took to her personally. She obviously didn't like it and was sort of being bullied, and of course it continued and more and more people joined in and it esclated into her getting more angered hence why she said some insults. And now, she's getting blamed for those insults even though it didn't happen first - she was blamed by the fans who said I don't like what you're doing in the first place. That just shows how nasty some people are, making their personal opinion more prominent by stopping others doing what they love.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: I used to love reading what people used to put about the shows whether that was videos or reviews. But now it's impossible because of people continuing their personal opinions.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:I'm not going to name anyone but if people kept their personal opinions of Q+AL to themselves or started a new forum to talk about their personal negative opinions then there would've no insults in the first place. .

runner_70 wrote:But c'mon it is really getting ridiculous now don't you think???

brENsKi wrote:

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:I'm not going to name anyone but if people kept their personal opinions of Q+AL to themselves or started a new forum to talk about their personal negative opinions then there would've no insults in the first place. .

sub-forum title is: blue it does NOT doesn't say red does it? I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech...or go and create your own forum - see how successful you are.

runner_70 wrote:But c'mon it is really getting ridiculous now don't you think???

well, it's not at Kiss Kaskets and Kiss Kondoms yet, so they haven't quite sold their souls to filthy lucre, or crossed the lines of bad taste.

Iron Butterfly wrote:

brENsKi wrote:

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:I'm not going to name anyone but if people kept their personal opinions of Q+AL to themselves or started a new forum to talk about their personal negative opinions then there would've no insults in the first place. .

sub-forum title is: blue it does NOT doesn't say red does it? I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech...or go and create your own forum - see how successful you are.

runner_70 wrote:But c'mon it is really getting ridiculous now don't you think???

well, it's not at Kiss Kaskets and Kiss Kondoms yet, so they haven't quite sold their souls to filthy lucre, or crossed the lines of bad taste.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but was there Queen condoms a few years back, or did I imagine it? Sorry for the question...it's not meant as ignorant.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: That just shows how nasty some people are, making their personal opinion more prominent by stopping others doing what they love.

brENsKi wrote: I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to be an asshole and ruin almost every thread on a forum, bordering on hate speech." There has to be a fine line in there somewhere. There's a reason why virtually every other forum is moderated to some degree - for civility's sake. Otherwise it will attract the worst that humanity has to offer, and it ends up being like this place.

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to be an asshole and ruin almost every thread on a forum, bordering on hate speech." There has to be a fine line in there somewhere. There's a reason why virtually every other forum is moderated to some degree - for civility's sake. Otherwise it will attract the worst that humanity has to offer, and it ends up being like this place.

brENsKi wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to be an asshole and ruin almost every thread on a forum, bordering on hate speech." There has to be a fine line in there somewhere. There's a reason why virtually every other forum is moderated to some degree - for civility's sake. Otherwise it will attract the worst that humanity has to offer, and it ends up being like this place.

yes. exactly. but my point is NOT about tone or language used - or even intent. my only point is that where a forum is created say for "Deep Purple - Post 1993", then people/fans still have a right to join in and say they don't like it. It's just not practical to expect to create a forum "sub" where only positives are allowed...in much the same way that we have BOTH criticised Freddie's lifestyle. This may be heresy to some, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

brENsKi wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to be an asshole and ruin almost every thread on a forum, bordering on hate speech." There has to be a fine line in there somewhere. There's a reason why virtually every other forum is moderated to some degree - for civility's sake. Otherwise it will attract the worst that humanity has to offer, and it ends up being like this place.

yes. exactly. but my point is NOT about tone or language used - or even intent. my only point is that where a forum is created say for "Deep Purple - Post 1993", then people/fans still have a right to join in and say they don't like it. It's just not practical to expect to create a forum "sub" where only positives are allowed...in much the same way that we have BOTH criticised Freddie's lifestyle. This may be heresy to some, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

snifflese wrote: Icy, there is a huge difference between saying you don't like something and the way in which Runner says his ugly things. I don't care if it is glowing or not, it is the filthy, nasty way he writes. Look at the post above Benski, it has these letters, F F t F o and never return S S S. There is no place for that here and he doesn't need to say those things to another poster. Quit bringing Caroline into this. I am not talking about her and don't wish to because we will just argue. I am talking about Runner who has no place in any forum as he is a horrible human being. By the say, when we say positive things about Adam and QAL, it isn't fawning. True statements that the majority of concert goers are stating, is not fawning.

snifflese wrote: Her posts are not filthy or abrasive to people, only to you and I have explained why, but don't want to go there. The Trump and German references are because she thinks you always dictate everything and want it your way just like they do. I have no opinion on that, but I am sure that is her reasoning. You are always telling her not to do something or spamming and dictating what she may and may not post, hence the reference. To me that ts mild compared to runner's comments. YMMV. If you could quit bringing that up every other page it might also be helpful. You are like an elephant repeating this over and over. Everybody here already knows that. What is the point to say it for the 1000th time?

runner_70 wrote: Sniff is the worst QZ member ever. No Queen fan a sad Glambert who cant do no wrong passive aggressive and shit stirring who cannot Accept any criticism. She deserves the everything she gets here. Ugliest Thing is that she want longtime Queenfans who hate her idol to leave the board. Pathetic. Everytime I own her bringing up her contradictions in her arguments she is twisting and turning her words and is trying to bully me and bring other users up against me.

Iron Butterfly wrote:

runner_70 wrote: Sniff is the worst QZ member ever. No Queen fan a sad Glambert who cant do no wrong passive aggressive and shit stirring who cannot Accept any criticism. She deserves the everything she gets here. Ugliest Thing is that she want longtime Queenfans who hate her idol to leave the board. Pathetic. Everytime I own her bringing up her contradictions in her arguments she is twisting and turning her words and is trying to bully me and bring other users up against me.

It's ironic she says that when she hasn't posted outside of this subforum once.

snifflese wrote:Certainly you can say you don't care for something...

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:red

brENsKi wrote:sub-forum title is: blue it does NOT doesn't say red does it? I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech...or go and create your own forum - see how successful you are.

brENsKi wrote:

snifflese wrote:Certainly you can say you don't care for something...

And FYI I did not try to justify anything. My point was clear. People trying to shutdown negative views on Q+AL are muddying the waters. Objection to language and tone and objection to dissenters are two very distinct views - and should remain so.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:red

brENsKi wrote:sub-forum title is: blue it does NOT doesn't say red does it? I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech...or go and create your own forum - see how successful you are.

If this were about language and tone, that'd be different, but Gen Z is attacking the right to post a negative in the Q+AL sub, because well, everything in this "blue sky fairy-tale land", can't be tarnished by counter opinion, can it? Gen Z Music wording was very clearly trying to ban Q+AL gainsayers' opinions in the Q+AL forum, full stop.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: I do like opinions because I do see some of the negative things about Q+AL but I just think constantly saying them is causing some of the AL fans to say insults to Queen fans. I'm just trying to make peace if you guys we're stop now or at least do it less often then it would be much a nicer place. We've heard all of your points several times now it's not made any diffences with the AL fans or even the band themselves. I just don't see the point of insulting people to put the point across. I'm just trying to make this place a lot better.

Gen Z Music Fan wrote: I do like opinions because I do see some of the negative things about Q+AL but I just think constantly saying them is causing some of the AL fans to say insults to Queen fans. I'm just trying to make peace if you guys we're stop now or at least do it less often then it would be much a nicer place. We've heard all of your points several times now it's not made any diffences with the AL fans or even the band themselves. I just don't see the point of insulting people to put the point across. I'm just trying to make this place a lot better.

runner_70 wrote:

brENsKi wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: I don't like Q+AL but I don't really get involved the discussions/rows about it, but that doesn't mean people who don't like it are not allowed to. so back off, and allow free speech

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to be an asshole and ruin almost every thread on a forum, bordering on hate speech." There has to be a fine line in there somewhere. There's a reason why virtually every other forum is moderated to some degree - for civility's sake. Otherwise it will attract the worst that humanity has to offer, and it ends up being like this place.

yes. exactly. but my point is NOT about tone or language used - or even intent. my only point is that where a forum is created say for "Deep Purple - Post 1993", then people/fans still have a right to join in and say they don't like it. It's just not practical to expect to create a forum "sub" where only positives are allowed...in much the same way that we have BOTH criticised Freddie's lifestyle. This may be heresy to some, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

In the German forum there is a policy that there are only positive QAL postings allowed. The admin there posted me in private and warned me if I ever say sth negative about QAL he would boot me. He did in the end. What a loser

Iron Butterfly wrote: Snifflese also wants bans to happen here. She came here ranting about wanting me banned because SweetCaroline was banned from QOL. So she wanted me banned from both Queen boards. First post she ever made here a couple of years ago.

snifflese wrote:For about the 5th time BENSKI, no one says there can be no opposing opinions and it has to be positive things as that is rubbish,

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:red

snifflese wrote: You people are absolutely bonkers! If you can't understand the difference between having an opposing opinion and discussing it in a mature way or calling people filthy names and insulting everyone right and left except for Icy, then there is no point to this place. For about the 5th time BENSKI, no one says there can be no opposing opinions and it has to be positive things as that is rubbish, BUT people can be grownup when they post their disagreement. Filthy name calling and some of thhe tings that are said bu Runner don't have a place here. What is it that you don't get about that? No, Icy, this is the only subforum I would like to post in, but it is impossible, since you people ,make it that way by jumping on and criticizing and doing what you do. Just because I don't post in other parts of the board doesn't mean I am not a Queen fan and I have been one for about 15 years longer than you. I am just not a rabid fan like you guys and I have explained that too many times. As far as Caroline goes, I see a person who was hounded and bitched at and derided by you for years, both here and on QOL, so if she makes a few remarks to you, you probably deserve it. You can only push a person so far. And at some point if you would quit bringing it up every darn day, it might pass, but you can't do that and keep goading her. Let the chips fall where they may. It is on you at this point, so keep it up, keep complaining and it will the normal crap place that it has been for so long. Why Runner keeps talking about bashing Freddie, I don't know. I have said how wonderful he was and don't feel I do that, nor does anyone else. I am not sure what he is reading. It must be he can't understand English, otherwise that remark makes no sense. However, on this part of the board, QAL is the main discussion. He needs to remember that. There is a reason that most sensible people feel Runner should be banned and it isn't for opposing views. Singers replace other singers all the time, especially when they are dead, and that is not riding on anyone's coattails. He is partly responsible for the success and has worked his butt off to make QAL what it is. So that is absolutely not true.

snifflese wrote: It is impossible to have a discussion with you as I just don't understand your logic at all. I give up. You and your new buddy can just go on with your constantly accusing, his filthy and nasty posts and basically screw things up here. You take everything out of context, view it the way you want to (basically never meant that way by the poster!) and then throw crap at people and say things they never said/meant. It is like trying to discuss with people in the loony bin. You can't see beyond your own prejudices and vilify anyone who might like discussing QAL. No one wants just glowing remarks as life isn't like that, but a little maturity about discussing would be nice and seeing things the way others do. I get folks don't like Adam or QAL, no problem. BUT you don't need to run Adam and Brian and Roger and the other posters down because of that. You are the people that want nothing but glowing praise for Freddie. QAL is not necessarily about Freddie anymore as I don't see him standing there performing. You either accept QAL as a new entity of Queen or you don't like it and just move on and listen to a lot of the old music you love. But you don't have to crap all over this thread and argue with people who are happy with the new state of affairs, as there is no other choice if you want to enjoy live music.

snifflese wrote:You take everything out of context, view it the way you want to (basically never meant that way by the poster!) and then throw crap at people and say things they never said/meant.

blue

green

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:red

snifflese wrote:It is like trying to discuss with people in the loony bin.

snifflese wrote: Singers replace other singers all the time, especially when they are dead, and that is not riding on anyone's coattails. He is partly responsible for the success and has worked his butt off to make QAL what it is. So that is absolutely not true.

snifflese wrote:Ok Benski, I give up with you, too, as you just don't understand at all what I have said. It is pointless around here. My only remark to you was sure there are different opinions and that is great and what a discussion should be.

blue

blue

green

Gen Z Music Fan wrote:red

snifflese wrote: I am not agreeing with GenZ, what does he have to do with my remark? I am refuting GenZ's remark. I think that would be lovely, but it isn't happening here, so just get your dissenting review civil! You are the one not comprehending my remark.

snifflese wrote: QAL is not necessarily about Freddie anymore as I don't see him standing there performing.

snifflese wrote: Perfect example of someone who should never be allowed to post anywhere. This is the last place for you as everywhere else has done that already. Doesn't say much about this forum!

snifflese wrote: Adam, for no good reason, is the lowest of the low. .

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

snifflese wrote: I am simply saying that it would never work for everyone here to have only positive remarks. That would be nice, but not possible. I don't understand the German forum requiring that, but I guess it does eliminate the nastiness on here. A lot of forums are like that, I guess. If everyone could be civil when they reply to a differing viewpoint, that would be the solution here. I just don't like the ugly things Runner says. I don't understand how I am shutting down everyone's right to post which you believe in. Everyone should be able to take part, but you can be civil or you should be banned if you can't follow basic rules on how to be a mature poster. It is like that in society, you have the right to do many things, but when you break the rules there are consequences and there should be here, too.

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: QAL is not necessarily about Freddie anymore as I don't see him standing there performing.

Fuck you - nothing left to say for comments like this. Disrespectful shitstirring C U N T

snifflese wrote: You have no colors, as you are just black through and through!

rockchic65 wrote: QAL is a separate entity from Queen and discussing QAL is separate from discussing Queen and therefore Freddie, can't see what's so hard to understand about that, it's obvious to most people that the two things aren't the same. We all know if Freddie hadn't been part of Queen the songs wouldn't exist and therefore Adam wouldn't be doing these shows but it's hardly necessary for anyone discussing the shows to keep mentioning the fact over and over, it's a given and shouldn't even need pointing out.

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform. If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

snifflese wrote: I know you love yourself some Freddie, (and most people do, but don't go as far as you), however calling him immortal is one of your more ridiculous.statements. You know that is "unsterblich" and to the best of my knowledge Freddie actually passed away in 1991, unless you are likening him to the gods in ancient Egypt and Rome in some weird way. Get a grip! I think legendary, celebrated, renowned, will go down in history is much more apt. This from the person who hates Freddie supposedly and all the other nonsense you take offense to. I think he is utteryly amazing, but it is not necessary to invoke his name when talking about current concerts, Not trying to throw shade on him as you always say!

runner_70 wrote:You sad lil shitstirring cunt again try to put Freddie down. Bach is immortal, Hendrix is, Morrisson is - Freddie Mercury is. Immortal artists whose music will live forever. SOmething you cannot say about this cover singing twat you adore

snifflese wrote: I know you love yourself some Freddie, (and most people do, but don't go as far as you), however calling him immortal is one of your more ridiculous.statements. You know that is "unsterblich" and to the best of my knowledge Freddie actually passed away in 1991, unless you are likening him to the gods in ancient Egypt and Rome in some weird way. Get a grip! I think legendary, celebrated, renowned, will go down in history is much more apt. This from the person who hates Freddie supposedly and all the other nonsense you take offense to. I think he is utteryly amazing, but it is not necessary to invoke his name when talking about current concerts, Not trying to throw shade on him as you always say!

snifflese wrote: I know you love yourself some Freddie, (and most people do, but don't go as far as you), however calling him immortal is one of your more ridiculous.statements. You know that is "unsterblich" and to the best of my knowledge Freddie actually passed away in 1991, unless you are likening him to the gods in ancient Egypt and Rome in some weird way. Get a grip! I think legendary, celebrated, renowned, will go down in history is much more apt. This from the person who hates Freddie supposedly and all the other nonsense you take offense to. I think he is utteryly amazing, but it is not necessary to invoke his name when talking about current concerts, Not trying to throw shade on him as you always say!

snifflese wrote: Could care less about Adam's legacy, nor do I worry about Freddie's. Seems totally pointless in both instances. I am just enjoying what Adam does now and Freddie's is already long established. Certainly won't lose any sleep over this issue, much more important things going on in the world. Perhaps you would be better off worrying less about Freddie's legacy as it has nothing to do with you regardless of what you seem to think. If anything, you seem to be tarnishing things with all your crazy ideas about it. What is is with you and Freddie's legacy? You act as if you were related to him and I doubt even those folks worry like you do on this subject.

snifflese wrote: Now you are making crap up, Icy. I don't protect or baby or do any of the above mentioned things. Man, do you ever make stuff up and lie. I simply like him as he is my favorite singer and I don't think he deserves the crap said about him here. Whatever, you are delusional and it doesn't do any good to say anything to you because it just doesn't compute. It is like talking to a brick wall and we all know what that accomplishes, nothing!

user1 wrote: W T F ? link

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform. If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform. If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences. So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

runner_70 wrote: . . . The whole movie had a homophobic undertone. . . . . .

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform. If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences. So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again? Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote: . . . The whole movie had a homophobic undertone. . . . . .

What, just like everything you post about Adam Lambert.

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform. If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences. So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again? Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

Your question about the original singers name, why are you asking me, your the one dimensional idiot fan boy here. The original singer in your post that you called the immortal front man, even though he's dead, that singer. Your the fucktart son, why don't you grow up!

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

snifflese wrote: You are no Queen fan to say what you do about them. I don't quite know what you are, but it is not a Queen fan.

. . . . . One is a legendary BAND with an immortal frontman. The other one is a sad COVER COMBO with a twat on vocals. . . . .

Not really, the "immortal frontman" has been dead since 1991 and your so called cover band is a slightly different line up of the original band (suited to live performance) plus a guest vocalist with the range needed to perform what they perform. If you want to call them a cover band, then you'll have to accept them as the most successful cover band ever.

"SLightly different"????? Just the most iconic frontman is missing and you are saying "slightly different"???? And John Deacon? What about him???? Slightly different as well??? YOu sad lil twat can join your buddy sniff in fantasy land

Yes slightly different because they still have the very recognisable guitarist sharing the stage with the equally recognisable drummer and the same keyboard player they've had since 84. Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . a new vocalist is major, but they are not the only band to do this and, although not by you, he has been accepted by the audiences. So a slightly different line up, not the original lineup but half the original band and three fifths of the 84/86 touring line up, slightly different and if you believe in immortality you're the sad lil twat.

Still unbelievable how delusional Glam-Fucktarts like you can get. guy without any input and what was that original singer's name again? Enough of this crap and grow the fuck up you assclown

Your question about the original singers name, why are you asking me, your the one dimensional idiot fan boy here. The original singer in your post that you called the immortal front man, even though he's dead, that singer. Your the fucktart son, why don't you grow up!

Yeha and this Deacon John guy had no input at all right you fuckhead?

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

runner_70 wrote: . . . The whole movie had a homophobic undertone. . . . . .

What, just like everything you post about Adam Lambert.

I do not care if he fucks guys or sheep . According to his voice maybe latter

Vocal harmony wrote: First of all, show me where I said that the original bass player and original singer had no input. Stop inventing stuff fuckhead.

Vocal harmony wrote: So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference

Vocal harmony wrote: . . . Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . . . .

Vocal harmony wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote: . . . Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . . . .

What I actually posted regarding John Deacon. When you read the whole thing it reads very differently to your cherry picked line quoted out of context. The thing is you're that stupid you think miss quoting something is going to prove you right when the original post is there for anyone to read anyway. So Martin Weckwerth ( you miss quoted me and tried to claim that what you quoted was all I said) you're a liar. You're a gutter crawling scum that doesn't belong in a public forum.

runner_70 wrote:It says the same thing you fuckwhit. Each bassplayer could play live instead of Deacon and it makes no big difference. Your words not mine. Idiot

runner_70 wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote: . . . Like it or not John Deacon ( great Bass player and song writer) spent a lot of gigs almost in Brian's and Freddies's shadows. So a replacement Bass player who stands in Deacons place and plays what is required is not a huge difference when watching a gig. . . . . .

What I actually posted regarding John Deacon. When you read the whole thing it reads very differently to your cherry picked line quoted out of context. The thing is you're that stupid you think miss quoting something is going to prove you right when the original post is there for anyone to read anyway. So Martin Weckwerth ( you miss quoted me and tried to claim that what you quoted was all I said) you're a liar. You're a gutter crawling scum that doesn't belong in a public forum.

It says the same thing you fuckwhit. Each bassplayer could play live instead of Deacon and it makes no big difference. Your words not mine. Idiot

runner_70 wrote: You should post when you are sober. Or are these all typos like those from your sidekick Bronski Beat?

runner_70 wrote: You should post when you are sober. Or are these all typos like those from your sidekick Bronski Beat?