John S Stuart 13.10.2004 18:57 |
Have a look at the "Time" thread. link Although I honestly answered this question correctly, and others in this zone also have the same excellent quality versions, it seems that Greg still wants to villify me in public for spreading this information. Any ideas why this should be so, when in fact all I did was report the truth? And why is it that so many zoner's are hoping that I take a fall over this? All I ever did was help you guys out. I do not see that as "stirring" things up, or "having a chip on my shoulder" But then again, perhaps it is me that is out of touch, as I have never known QP or Greg to take such a vitriolic stance before. As the tag-line to a televison programme once read: "The truth is out there..." |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 19:09 |
I don't understand the history here John to be honest, but for my part in all of this, it was your reply (where you seemed to be implying) that Greg had said "they do not exist" that caused me the problem. |
Mr Mercury 13.10.2004 19:28 |
John, I wouldnt worry about it. I've enjoyed many of your posts here. As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuracies - and this all from a man "supposedly" in the know. Any way, Peace to you, Dave |
juls 13.10.2004 19:43 |
yes I agree John, I'm with you :) I think it is a million times better to help with any information (and I am sure that you only give the kind of information you are sure about) than writing empty topics (no, I dont mean the Time thread, but most of you know which ones I mean) Thanks in advance for every comment and help you give in the future! |
Mr Mercury 13.10.2004 19:56 |
fairydandy wrote: I don't understand the history here John to be honest, but for my part in all of this, it was your reply (where you seemed to be implying) that Greg had said "they do not exist" that caused me the problem.FD, I think that you misinterpreted what John had actually said. His actual quote was "Therefore over the past four or so years it has just evolved into an easier and quicker explanation to say that "They do not exist"." To me he was just saying that that was the standard reply from QP. Its like when people continually ask about Hangman - and I know that Greg has said there is no studio version of that song - but according to this site link its says that there is a quality version recorded by the BBC. Now I dont know if this is true either, but I have a funny feeling that if I was to ask someone at QP about this the "they do not exist" reply would be forthcoming. And peace to you as well Dave |
Brimon 13.10.2004 20:07 |
I hate taking sides because I dont know either of you, and I dont want to hurt anyones feelings. So Im with you John. However, I must point out that if another thread is started in favour of GB, then Ill be with him, but just so you know, Ill really be with you, even though he'll think I'm with him. Unless he reads this of course and then that really buggers things up. |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 20:16 |
Mr Mercury wrote:John rather gave the impression that I was fobbed off with the standard response (that they do not exist, and said that Greg was being a diplomat), I merely asked Greg if that was the case.fairydandy wrote: I don't understand the history here John to be honest, but for my part in all of this, it was your reply (where you seemed to be implying) that Greg had said "they do not exist" that caused me the problem.FD, I think that you misinterpreted what John had actually said. His actual quote was "Therefore over the past four or so years it has just evolved into an easier and quicker explanation to say that "They do not exist"." To me he was just saying that that was the standard reply from QP. Its like when people continually ask about Hangman - and I know that Greg has said there is no studio version of that song - but according to this site link its says that there is a quality version recorded by the BBC. Now I dont know if this is true either, but I have a funny feeling that if I was to ask someone at QP about this the "they do not exist" reply would be forthcoming. And peace to you as well Dave I have innocently stepped into a minefield, but all I wanted to know was if I am going to get the bloody tracks before I die or not. What the hell is the point of keeping these under wraps if we can all get to hear them...life is too short. |
Deacons 1st Choice 13.10.2004 20:30 |
Hey guys... Can someone please tell me who Greg Brooks is ? Please don't say "oh, he's Queens's Archievist". I KNOW that already, what i want to know is who he is exactly. WHAT does he do exactly besides listen to all the old archieved material and help find rare stuff for the new dvd issues? I would like some coherent details on this gentlemen please...anyone have some insights? Anyone here meet him? Please help me put my curiousity to rest...all i ever hear when i ask is the "he's Queen's Archeivist" jazz. IS he on the QP payroll? Is he legit? What's the story?? Thanks in advance for any insight you can give me. |
wstüssyb 13.10.2004 21:05 |
They are pissed But a lot of fans still aint gonna hear these goodies > < |
YourValentine 13.10.2004 21:34 |
Greg Brook's email to fairydandy is just incredible. I hope QP does not feel represented by this vindictive and insulting email! Nobody ever said there was a "dark secret" - John just said there was a soundboard quality recording available while Greg says he was unable to find it - his email is overreacting to say the least. There is no "myth", no conspiracy theory or anything like this, just an archivist who is for some reason freaking out by the idea he did not find all available material for the Freddie box. What about the Freddie/Michael Jackson tracks? They are not on the Freddie box, either. Probably for the same reason John suggested for the Dominion songs: copy right problems. Now, if Greg Brooks would claim he was unable to track them down - well, that would be just as unlikely as his claim of being unable to get a copy of the Dominion tracks: if he did not find them, he just did not ask the right people. And as Mike pointed out correctly in the other thread: considering the quality of the Wreckage recordings, sound quality cannot have been the reason to exclude such a historic (Freddie's last live performance)recording from the box. |
Saint Jiub 13.10.2004 22:16 |
Amen YV It is amazing how an innocent little question exploded into an inferno, all because it was suggested that Greg might have used a little white lie to keep an answer simple. |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners 14.10.2004 00:21 |
There's obviously a history between Greg & John that most of us will never know. I have a hunch though... Greg, as the almighty appointed Queen archivist, is constantly tested and challenged by Queen fans, well-meaning Queen fans and otherwise. Greg has proven himself to hardly be bulletproof in terms of factual accuracy (I still feel ripped off by is Queen Live book), but that's his own fault. It seems to me that any time someone comes along and points out some fact or recording which has previously slipped under his radar, he takes offense and then tries to cover his ass by myriad irrelevant details like availability etc. Bottom line: He's embarrassed, but only at his own laziness. I've said it before & I'll say it again - he's got no one to blame but himself, and that's what's so embarrassing to him. In this case, specifically, it sounds like he's rather red-faced about not having found these recordings in time for the Mercury boxed set, which would have been the ideal venue for their inclusion. Devout Queen fans have been trying to lend their collective expertise to Greg for years, but have routinely received icy, skeptical, haughty responses. No wonder this one had icicles dangling from it as well. Let Brooks broil in his own juices - he's earned it. |
The Real Wizard 14.10.2004 01:01 |
Mr Mercury wrote: As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuraciesAn understatement that is. I submitted over 200 corrections to him for the revised book. Let's see how many of them make the final cut. |
Mr. Scully 14.10.2004 02:19 |
There's an obvious antipathy between John and Greg and that's why it's not wise to take any side here. John, you know I always supported you in the past but in some cases it was a mistake and I learnt my lesson - I'm no more sticking my nose into things that are not business. So who knows where the truth is. Anyway, Greg's reaction went too far, it was pretty far from being polite. And Greg has more reasons to lie than John. |
deleted user 14.10.2004 05:00 |
I came out from the shadow (there I met our beloved Deaky... I will say hello to him for you) to say my opinion. I am quite shocked by Greg Brooks public (over)reaction, I'd never have imagined a thing such that. As stated before, there may be some troubles between Greg Brooks and John Stuart so I wouldn't say who I'm with. All I can say is a big thanks to John S Stuart: sir, despite many envious people who keep on spitting rage on you (just because, sons of the internet era, they would like 1) everything 2) for free 3) now), your infos are amongst the best things I can still get about Queen: nothing you can get, read or acquire elsewhere. I know how difficult is to get new stuff about the band, so the infos are much appreciated to me; I wish this could be for everyone... I don't like the way QP is working and I've heard many unpleasant stories about mr. Brooks way to work: I can't judge by myself. I tried to collaborate to the MK dvd release and that's been the only contact I had in my life with him. All the most rilevant Queen collectors know the truth about the Time live tracks, know why they haven't been released on the FM box set (which is quite far from being the ultimate collection, now, counting also the Jackson demos and some others who no one still know of...) so I wouldn't say John Stuart lied. I could say QP (and Greg Brooks especially) don't like him because he talks too much, but I think he's entitled, as a long life term Queen fan and impressive collector. I would leave the fights to the 2 of them, but if I had to choose the one I'd like to keep on read on the net... well, I wouldn't hesitate and you already know my choice. cheers! |
John S Stuart 14.10.2004 06:10 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners: "There's obviously a history between Greg & John that most of us will never know..." Mr Scully: "There's an obvious antipathy between John and Greg..." Thanks for the support all. (That was a genuine "thank-you" and not a sarcasm!). The truth is, from this side, I have no problems with Greg. He is the official archivist who works for Queen Productions, and as such has to tow a party-line. He is in a position to know much more about Queen releases than I do, and I concede to his superior knowledge in this area. I honestly have no issues here. But on the other-hand, I have no such restriction, and I have a freedom to say what I believe to be true, without the sanctions of the Queen machine. This kind of makes me a loose cannon. It does not make what I say inaccurate, but it is said without the sanction of official permission. In the end, that "position" is bound to cause me some grief. However, at the end of the day, I find it is a price worth paying. |
Mr Mercury 14.10.2004 08:03 |
Sir GH<br><font size=1>ah yeah</font> wrote:Sir GH, I do hope that you remembered to tell him that the support band for the gig at Edinburgh Ingliston 1982 was infact the band Heart and not, as he stated in his book, Teardrop Explodes. I know because I was actually there, as apparently was Fatty.Mr Mercury wrote: As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuraciesAn understatement that is. I submitted over 200 corrections to him for the revised book. Let's see how many of them make the final cut. |
Sebastian 14.10.2004 12:37 |
It's my turn to put my two cents here: It's not a secret that I don't like either John or Greg, and I think people who know me are aware of that. Having said so, I'm not the kind of guy who'd start to say now things against them, because it'd be completely unfair. John had a good point in saying that others can be in a similar position as he is but don't share that with anyone. And nobody's forcing him to post here what he has said before about unreleased tracks etc. So that says a lot about him (positively). About Greg, I've never read the book and I don't know about rare concerts or stuff like that, but I think it's also unfair to say that his book is full of mistakes. I'd actually be very surprised if over 20, or even 10 percent, is catually wrong. And even in that case, that book was (correct me if I'm wrong) the "Mamma" of many modern Queen "scholar researches". It's the same as Beatles: if you check their records there are flat notes here and there, sometimes piano played a chord different that it was supposed to, sometimes you hear some noises.... but thanks to them there's a lot of the rest (because it's not all anyway). |
gabriel79 14.10.2004 12:42 |
from i've read in this topic greg books is a real son of a bitch. |
Penetration_Guru 14.10.2004 16:33 |
Greg's response gets angrier the longer he keeps typing, which reflects *AN* aspect of his personality - he's the focus of a great deal of frustration about the time taken to issue the box sets, which is probably outside his control anyway, and it's easy to see why a *PERCEIVED* slight such as JSS' remarks would upset. However, the email should have been edited before being sent. Enough people have already pointed out that FD & JSS were not actually contradicting each other - which is all in the semantics. I'm a little surprised that Greg feels JSS is out of order, given the way he *APPEARS* to have been treated by QP. I knew about the Ibex thing, but didn't realise there was a BBC session that he was "ripped off" (my words) as well... Given that Greg's public utterances are semi-sarcastic deliberate misunderstandings of random questions about album tracks and how good Jazz is, and JSS' widen my knowledge of what does and does not exist....I'll make no apologies for continuing to play close attention to JSS. Finally, we may now feel that the FM box was incomplete, but it mad no such claims, and should, in my view, still be considered a superb document of FM's solo work. And I didn't fucking swear once... |
fairydandy 14.10.2004 17:36 |
The initial response that John gave to me can indeed be read in two ways. My interpretation of it was sent back to Greg (along with the URL to the topic)to ask what he made of the comments. Ok, so Greg got a bit angry, it happens, we all do it and press 'send' when maybe we should switch off. I admit to being quite angry at JSS's rather superior tones in his initial reply myself. I can't help but think that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye though, and this was perhaps just was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. So anyway, the tracks exist, but no we can't have them...that's a bloody shame. ;-( |
inu-liger 14.10.2004 18:01 |
|
The Real Wizard 14.10.2004 18:17 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Sir GH, I do hope that you remembered to tell him that the support band for the gig at Edinburgh Ingliston 1982 was infact the band Heart and not, as he stated in his book, Teardrop Explodes. I know because I was actually there, as apparently was Fatty.Unfortunately, support bands are not my area of expertise. |
Deacons 1st Choice 14.10.2004 20:57 |
Still waiting for a answer to my question...(who exactly IS Greg Brooks...DETAILS PLEASE....soemthing beyond the usual "Queen Archeivist" line) From what i gather reading this so far, he is NOT very popular with the Fans.... Is this correct? |
Saint Jiub 14.10.2004 21:16 |
Queen Live: A Concert Documentary Freddie Mercury's death signalled the end of one of the most popular live bands ever. Queen attracted thousands of fans to their shows and this book, a complete run down of every Queen concert performed anywhere in the world, is the perfect keepsake for anyone who's ever been to a Queen show. Opening with their earliest college concerts in 1970 and running right up to the extraordinary Freddie Mercury Memorial Concert at Wembley Stadium in 1993, 'Queen Live: A Concert Documentary' is the most ambitious - and comprehensive book ever published on the group. Author Greg Brooks is well known to Queen fans and collectors and has contributed articles on the band to Record Collector magazine. |
GB 18.10.2004 12:06 |
Let's get some things straight - which a few of you anonymous people have got out of proportion. 1. My reply to the comments made by John Stuart might have been 'strong'. I speak my mind, call it how i see it. I never set out just to be malicious for the sake of it. I responded with what i thought and still think was an appropriate reply. It's tough if people don't like what i come back with - they should have thought of that before piping off with inaccuracies. that's fair enough - surely. 2. My take was that john was ONLY making things unnecessarily muddy and unclear, and being provocative when factual clarity was needed - as his want from time to time. His comment about we (or me) just saying "it doesn't exist" as a atandard reply is badly wrong. I never insult Queen fans by saying that, if i know otherwise, because i know i would be found out. i try to answer honestly. Those of you in Holland this last weekend will know i answered all questions as best i could - never with "it doesn't exist" - unless i know 100 percent that something does not exist. 3. There is no great history with john and i, EXCEPT that, to be candid (since you want me to) John has a way of phrasing things which get up peoples' noses. There always SEEMS to be an agenda to his words - another meaning below the surface. John suggests things which he knows will or can be taken in other ways, but still rants on regardless. i genuinely believe he must like the adverse attention his (sometimes) inaccurate guessing and annoying conjecture will inspire. i can't see another reason why he would say what he says otherwise. 4. Before the days when John started saying 'aggravating' things, and MISquoting me, and others, i found him to be a nice guy - very knowledgable and on top of things. BUT he was always economical with the facts and always gave me an uneasy feeling - as well as others too (who share this view). He said SOME things, left out other relevant things. You know this is true John because you actually admitted it to me. You know better than anyone that you only speak SOME of the facts (those that suit you best) and RARELY or NEVER offer all the relavent facts. This is why some people are suspicious of you, because they, and me, pick up on the fact that you are deliberately keeping relevant info back, knowing what the result would be. this happenened twice with you and me in 2000, when you told me only half the story - remember???? 5. When i said John (and others like him) should keep quiet rather than spreading misinformation, guesswork and his (unusual) take on things, i meant it. I stand by it. I think people should say things they know to be the case or else shut up. OR say..."I am guessing here, but i THINK Greg says 'it does not exist' because such and such..." THEN WE'LL ALL KNOW WHAT IS JOHN STUART FACT, AND WHAT IS JOHN STUART GUESSING. And then i won't get the hump because AGAIN John is getting up my nose saying things which don't need saying. It's that simple. 6. WHY ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE allowed/permitted to write their comments anonymously?????? if someone has an opinion, something to say, why can't they say, like me, and John Stuart do (good for you John. i respect you for that) THIS IS GREG BROOKS SAYING xxxxxxxxx" Someone on here wrote..... 'As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuracies' Well, OK, thats a fair opinion, but who are you???? Tell us all who you are. Don't hide. Come out and say who you are, and express yourself openly. Have the courage of your convictions. ALL OF YOU. It seems really feeble and girlie to hold such convictions and strong opinions (which is great) but NOT be prepared to put your name and reputation to them (which is cowardly and shallow and babyish). Someone here... fd, or anyone, tell me why you do this. |
Maz 18.10.2004 12:28 |
GB wrote: It seems really feeble and girlie GB wrote: And i refuse to speak with anyone not man enough to tell me who he is.You know, I was really interested by a couple of your points, that is until you started using this gendered language and associating negative traits with feminine qualities. Seems awfully chauvinistic and pigheaded to assume that people that use an alias on a public notice board are womanly and somehow inferior than you. But gender bias aside, we use an alias to provide some degree of protection against the insane bumpties that post on QZ from time to time (ie Ming, a former QOL employee himself). Probably half the users in this thread I know their real names and where they live, but that came only after I spent time here and got to know them. After all, we've traded back and forth and developed a level of trust. To assume that Greg Brooks, or any other person in the world with a dear love of "Freddie," can just pop in and chat "mano y mano" is a bit much. Now, if Greg Brooks, Queen Productions, or some reputable collector would like to start a private noticeboard, then I am sure you would no longer see aliases. But until then, you'll have to put up with the realities of the internet, however "girlie" they may be. |
Oberon 18.10.2004 12:37 |
Kinda see Greg's point here, but forums typically encourage the use of nicknames for anonymity and protection of people's privacy. After all, if there is a complete nutter on a forum, lack of anonymity could lead that person to do some harm. Generally, it's not going to be a problem, but you never know. Leave the forum for what it was intended, and take these kind of "discussions" offline if the anonymity is to be removed. While I have found this thread interesting, it's not really appropriate for this war of words to happen here really (although if it didn't, would we be any the wiser about the truth?). That's my take on it anyway. |
deleted user 18.10.2004 12:37 |
My God... never witnessed such a thing. Hello mr Brooks, you already know my name because I (have tried to) collaborate to the MK dvd project. The reason for which the people don't widely screen their names is that it's not safe doing it on the net and I won't change this sort of "netiquette" just because you call us fans "coward"; which is, I have to tell you that, very unfair. You apologized for the offences towards Mr. Stuart and now you insulted the users on this board. We spoke, I told you my full name in past, that should be sufficient to read my post. I think you took this matter far too hard and I think it's been a mistake bringing it on the net, on a public board. People did't like Queen Production and yourself much before everything happened and this quarrel won't bring any advantage to you. In the specific, Mr Stuart just said what he knew about the live recordings from the musical "Time", talking of things many people didn't know of. Queen fans are dying to get the rarities boxes, or at least some infos about their beloved band!! And neither you or QP provided them. We are very grateful to people like John Stuart for what he shared with us common fans/common collectors; and i'm speaking in term of knowledges and in term of recordings (bbc sessions, ibex concert... those should remind you something). Besides what I said... I don't want to join the quarrel, I will leave it to you and Mr. Stuart, in the hope you can keep it as more private as possible. Queen world already got so many low points lately, we don't need any others, please... |
pma 18.10.2004 13:15 |
Zeni the Wet Sprocket wrote:I agree with Zeni[/mindless follower]GB wrote: It seems really feeble and girlieGB wrote: And i refuse to speak with anyone not man enough to tell me who he is.You know, I was really interested by a couple of your points, that is until you started using this gendered language and associating negative traits with feminine qualities. Seems awfully chauvinistic and pigheaded to assume that people that use an alias on a public notice board are womanly and somehow inferior than you. But gender bias aside, we use an alias to provide some degree of protection against the insane bumpties that post on QZ from time to time (ie Ming, a former QOL employee himself). Probably half the users in this thread I know their real names and where they live, but that came only after I spent time here and got to know them. After all, we've traded back and forth and developed a level of trust. To assume that Greg Brooks, or any other person in the world with a dear love of "Freddie," can just pop in and chat "mano y mano" is a bit much. Now, if Greg Brooks, Queen Productions, or some reputable collector would like to start a private noticeboard, then I am sure you would no longer see aliases. But until then, you'll have to put up with the realities of the internet, however "girlie" they may be. Really though, was it just me or did GB just show symptoms of MadTheSwine/Greatkingrat69. I felt the same kind of 'love' in the air when reading. |
Mr Mercury 18.10.2004 19:01 |
“The arsehole who criticised my book... stop me in the street. Say to me, my name is xxxxxx, and i think your book is inaccurate and etc, etc. etc. Be an adult about it, not a faceless, cowardly creep. Earn some respect.” Since you seem to be referring to me, all I have to say is this- I am not an “arsehole” nor a “cowardly creep” as you so kindly put it. I never called you one and see no need for you to do likewise with me. So why don’t you be “adult” about it and show some “respect”. “BE HONEST and open. OK, my book is crap.” Again, I never said your book was crap. Ok so maybe my comment was slightly over the top (“a book full of inaccuracies”)and for which I apologise but since my theory was based on two things. Firstly, by watching the Rare live video and wondering what else they played that night, then go to check your book only to find that that info isn’t there and secondly, however right or wrong, by reading what other people have said. Yes my theory is flawed, but it is how I honestly saw it and its only my opinion and at least I’m admitting it. And in defence of your book I have to say this – it was then and no doubt will be in the future – a mammoth task to undertake and I have nothing but admiration for your desire to do so. And I truly wish you well with that. “But what book did YOU offer. What useful work have YOU offered the Queen fans????” The simple answer to that is NONE. I have never had any inclination to be a writer at any time period. |
Brimon 18.10.2004 19:47 |
I really cant believe that anyone would promote people putting their real names on a public notice board. I most certainly do not want to take the chance of having some fruitball finding out where I live. The vast majority of people here, post under an pseudonym for this reason, and the vast majority of people here, have not written a book about Queen. You have, and you put your name on that book, that was your choice no one forced you to do it. So if you choose to reply on a public notice board where people have chosen to use nics, then I believe you ought to respect their right to privacy. |
wstüssyb 18.10.2004 19:58 |
Scully, do people know who you are???? well he does have a link to his name, if some one over the age of 3 and is not completely stupid could click the link and find out, I'm sorry that you fail to fit that mold. 6. WHY ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE allowed/permitted to write their comments anonymously?????? Pretty sure most ppl here know my name, and most have my address from trades, I simply dont feel like posting my name and address as my user name. Please if you gonna come here and act like a big shot, at least dont start war,and go off like you did cuz your gonna bow out like most ppl who try, this aint a bunch of 5 years old, we will put you in your place. |
GB 18.10.2004 21:05 |
Zeny. you make a valid point, you really do, but you also endorse my main rudimentary point absolutely and completely. Yes, i did assume (wrongly) that i was addresing males with my comments. This was ENTIRELY due to the fact that i had no idea who dandy and fd and hangman and Zeny are - what sex they are, or anything. You created your site that way; no one has a gender or individuality unless you happen to know whose behind the various user names. that's not my fault. Had i known, or had the remotest clue as to the balance of gender tuned in to this site, i could have phrased my comments accordingly. I think it is fundimentally wrong for you guys to know my real identity, and that of people such as John Stuart, and (apparently) most of everyone else's identity on this site, while I, and no doubt others too, have no idea who we are addressing and being criticised by. It's a ONE SIDED conversation, instead of two sided, as normal in every other walk of human communication. Zeny (I'm assuming you are feminine, because you do not actually tell me), you wrote this.... 'I was really interested by a couple of your points, that is until you started using this gendered language and associating negative traits with feminine qualities. Seems awfully chauvinistic and pigheaded to assume that people that use an alias on a public notice board are womanly and somehow inferior than you.' Do not let my wrong assumption deter you from commenting on my 'interesting points'. That seems rather shallow and weak; to be put off quite so easily. Stand up and have your say and do not let my chauvinism halt that. You may have some 'issues' to address too, for you to take so personally what was not at all personal. how could i be personal? i did not know your name or sex? i still don't. it is therefore impossible for me to assume i am superior to you or anyone else. you took the wrong inference from my words - though i could have better phrased them. i was not careful to do so because i figured if you guys cannot even let your identity and gender be known, then i won't worry too much about gender sensitivities. i hope you agree that's a fair compromise your anonymity brought about. i read carefully your comments about 'some degree of protection against the insane bumpties that post on QZ from time to time' but i see it as a bit of cop out. no offence intended. i think if you guys and girls have things to say, and with such passion, then you owe it to everyone who reads it, like me, and the person you are speaking about, to know who said it. this is normal when two humans talk. How would you like everyone else in your life to remain secret in terms of identity? It would be unbearable if you never knew who you were talking to, or who it was that just made that comment. You'd say "stop hiding behind that mask, Who are you? Stand up and be accountable for what you say and do." that's all I'm saying SHOULD be the case on your web site. Then there would be no gender confusion, or other avoidable presumptions caused by not knowing who the hell Zeny is - or what sex this person is. I hope you take my point. Zeny, you also say...'After all, we've traded back and forth and developed a level of trust' You haven't got THAT MUCH TRUST if you cannot even trust each other not to abuse the knowledge of your true identity. If you had trust, you'd happily use each others real names and not have to worry about the things you outline. Your entire site is based around aliases - which by their nature suggest absence of confidence and trust. how can you talk about trust? 'To assume that Greg Brooks, or any other person in the world with a dear love of "Freddie," can just pop in and chat "mano y mano" is a bit much.' i don't understand your point here Miss?/Mrs?/Mr? Zeny. 'Now, if Greg Brooks, Queen Productions, or some reputable collector would like to start a private noticeboard, then I am sure you woul |
Saint Jiub 18.10.2004 22:29 |
Real names are overrated. Someone nicknamed "Karaoke Queen" (KQ) was a Serious Queen collector and was as well respected as John Stuart. He chose to use an alias, but created an discrete identity for that name that Queen zoners trusted. Also I do not need to know Mr. Scully's real name, although I recall his first name is Martin (I forget his last name). His identity to me is his web page plus his alias at Queen Zone. In reality, Greg, you are almost faceless as us at Queenzone. We know you are a writer for Record Collector, wrote "Queen Live", and are now Queen's archivist, but little else (and that is more than we need to know). Do you plan to tell us about your wife and kids and where you live? Give us your home phone number? Of course not. Queenzoners generally do not publish personal information on the internet (including their name) for obvious reasons. However one can usually see the identity behind the alias. The only problem with aliases, is that sometimes an unreputable poster will hide behind a fake alias. That has not happened to you at Queenzone. |
Lester Burnham 18.10.2004 23:01 |
How hypocritical of you - GB is not your actual name, now is it? Granted, you state in your signature there that your name is Greg Brooks, but if you're being so critical of a handle on a messageboard, you should at least put up or shut up and have your real name as your handle. Of course, Lester Burnham isn't mine, but I'd rather not reveal that information. I'm not going to get involved in this, other than to say that you, Greg Brooks, are being extremely oversensitive and childish as to what people on THE INTERNET have to say about you. I think you should be worrying about other things - like getting those fucking box sets out - as opposed to a battle with Queen fans. |
Maz 19.10.2004 02:02 |
GB wrote: Zeny. you make a valid point, you really do, but you also endorse my main rudimentary point absolutely and completely.As you did mine. More on that later. I think it is fundimentally wrong for you guys to know my real identity, and that of people such as John Stuart, and (apparently) most of everyone else's identity on this site, while I, and no doubt others too, have no idea who we are addressing and being criticised by. It's a ONE SIDED conversation, instead of two sided, as normal in every other walk of human communication.You cannot expect to enter into a coversation and have everyone introduce themselves, even in the real world. If you want to know us, then stick around. Now, I agree that it is not proper that people call you names and insult you when they don't know you, (JSS's opinions aside, as he has had contact you in the past) The reason they do this has less to do with Greg Brooks, Englishman, and more to do with Greg Brooks, Queen Productions employee. Like it or not, you are a public representative of QP. I have no doubt that most people wouldn't say squat to your face in a private conversation. But as long as you represent QP, you will inevitably receive public criticism. Unfair, yes, but the reality, I'm sure. You may have some 'issues' to address too, for you to take so personally what was not at all personal. how could i be personal? i did not know your name or sex? i still don't. it is therefore impossible for me to assume i am superior to you or anyone else. you took the wrong inference from my words - though i could have better phrased them. i was not careful to do so because i figured if you guys cannot even let your identity and gender be known, then i won't worry too much about gender sensitivities. i hope you agree that's a fair compromise your anonymity brought about.No, no it's not. Effectively, what you are saying is "I didn't know there were woman listening, so it's ok that I made biased comments." Negative behavior is negative behavior, regardless of the context or audience. i read carefully your comments about 'some degree of protection against the insane bumpties that post on QZ from time to time' but i see it as a bit of cop out. no offence intended.None taken. Allow me a personal example. Due to someone else putting my personal information online without my consent, I was contacted by an individual I would rather have never seen again. My privacy was violated inadvertantly. Now, it's no secret that QZ has it's share of trolls here, and we have all seen one troll in particular post personal info on some users out of spite. That's a situation that most of us want to avoid. Zeny, you also say...'After all, we've traded back and forth and developed a level of trust' You haven't got THAT MUCH TRUST if you cannot even trust each other not to abuse the knowledge of your true identity. If you had trust, you'd happily use each others real names and not have to worry about the things you outline. Your entire site is based around aliases - which by their nature suggest absence of confidence and trust. how can you talk about trust?Yes, I do, but again, the aliases are for the public notice board. We have conversations that exist outside this public arena, whether through email, instant messages, chat rooms, or, for some, face to face meetings. Many users here were at the recent Dutch convention you attend, but yet they still use aliases on the board. Does the fact that I address Wstussyb, pma, or YourValentine by their internet nicknames diminish their trust in me any? No. 'To assume that Greg Brooks, or any other person in the world with a dear love of "Freddie," can just pop in and chat "mano y mano" is a bit much.' i don't understand your point here Miss?/Mrs?/Mr? Zeny. |
Mr. Scully 19.10.2004 03:20 |
Greg, you've chosen the wrong person for your rhetorical question - as I have several websites, everybody (who wants) can find out my real name and home address (maybe telephone number too) after five minutes at max. (And you know it anyway, after Jacky wrote it to you several years ago - do you remember our argument?) |
gnomo 19.10.2004 04:38 |
"Greg Brooks" said: > Had i known, or had the remotest clue as to the balance of gender tuned in to this site, i could have phrased my comments accordingly. ... sorry, English is not my native language so I need to ask for clarification: does that mean you speak of women as your equals in their presence only, and as inferiors in their absence...? Thank you very much. -- Gnomo |
fat bottomed girl 7238 19.10.2004 07:55 |
Hi All I just thought that I'd add my own thoughts to this thread. How bad does this have to get before you all drop it..hey? After reading the original thread that lead to this debate I can see why everyone has got so hot under the collar - but give it a rest. JSS - You make fair and relevant points on here but in a way that makes everyone else feel inferior. The one time I did make contact with you when you requested help with something or another (I forget what it was now) I found you rude and arrogant. To call employees of Qp 'Liars' is a hardly diplomatic thing to do - and I see your attack on Greg Brooks as the 1st stone cast. Greg must be really pissed off to read time and time again personal insults about himself on various Queen boards, and I think that anyone would get to a point where they felt they had to speak out. Without Greg do you think there would have been a Freddie Mercury Box Set released? Do you think there would be a hope in hell of the Anthology box sets (Yes - I live in hope) ever appearing. Face it - Greg does a good job and has always tried to help us mere mortals when and where he can. I remember not so long ago Jacky Smith was the target of these boards. All I can say is DON'T alienate those at QP - or where would we be??? FBG!!! real name - MARIE WHITTAKER (and not embarrassed to reveal it) |
Mr. Scully 19.10.2004 08:05 |
Marie, you have yourself admitted that you're Greg's good friend - so you can hardly be blamed for defending Greg and you can hardly blame others for criticizing him. Others are in a different position than you. "All I can say is DON'T alienate those at QP - or where would we be???" Truth? Without Jacky we'd already be in the 21st century :-) But that's a different issue :-) |
GB 19.10.2004 09:05 |
"Greg Brooks" said: >>> Had i known, or had the remotest clue as to the balance of gender tuned in to this site, i could have phrased my comments accordingly. ===... sorry, English is not my native language so I need to ask for clarification: does that mean you speak of women as your equals in their presence only, and as inferiors in their absence...? === Thank you very much. === Gnomo OH DEAR, GOMO. HOW TOUCHY YOU ARE ABOUT THIS MATTER. RELAX. 'WOMEN BEING EQUEL OR INFERIOR' IS NOT THE DEBATE. ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THE TWO SEXES ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY EQUEL IS A MORON, AND NOT WORTH YOUR TIME ANYWAY. WHY GET SO HOT UNDER THE COLLARE ABOUT SUCH THINGS NOT EVEN PART OF THE DEBATING ON THIS SITE. RELAX, CHILL OUT, CALM YOURSELF. YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE WILL CREEP UP IF YOU GET INTO EQUEL RIGHTS ISSUES AND INFERIORITY IMPLICATIONS. THAT'S FAR TOO DEEP. I WAS NOT QUESTIONING THAT. YOU ARE TOO TENSE. TOO STRESSED. TOO WILING TO REACT WHEN NOTHING WAS MEANT IN THAT VANE. ARE YOU UNDER PRESSURE? |
Lisser 19.10.2004 10:07 |
I don't think this is the Greg Brooks from QP. |
Pim Derks 19.10.2004 10:15 |
Pff, can someone ban him please? No surprise the boxsets don't get released if he's going to post all those long posts here. |
fairydandy 19.10.2004 10:36 |
Someone here... fd, or anyone, tell me why you do this. What is your reason that you do not let us all who you are?? I CANNOT SEE A GOOD REASON FOR THIS. CAN ANYONE GIVE ME A GOOD REASON PLEASE?Sure. There are too many wankers online who will use the information against you. I really do appreciate what you are saying though Greg (if you are really Greg) and if you want my real name then you can gladly have it in a private e mail. The user name stays on here though, not negotiable. |
Wilki Amieva 19.10.2004 11:50 |
In defence of GB Live book I want to point that it was published LONG before he was the QUEEN archivist. Inaccurate as it is, it was a valuable resource for all collectors around the globe in the past decade. I wish him luck with the new version. By the way, my real name is Pablo Martín Amieva and I am a 27 year-old man from Buenos Aires, Argentina (where I am known as Wilki). |
John S Stuart 19.10.2004 12:03 |
Greg - please visit the "Back Chat" thread. Can you give some constructive reply please? |
gnomo 19.10.2004 12:47 |
"Greg Brooks" wrote: > HOW TOUCHY YOU ARE ABOUT THIS MATTER. > I WAS NOT QUESTIONING THAT. > YOU ARE TOO TENSE. TOO STRESSED. TOO WILING TO > REACT WHEN NOTHING WAS MEANT IN THAT VANE. "Greg", I am sorry that my question has been misunderstood: I was not reacting over a "gender equality" issue at all. My question was merely linguistic: I was genuinely asking for clarifications about a statement of yours because I could not figure out what it actually meant in practical terms. As I said, English is not my native language and I do not understand its subtleties too well, so I try to take advantage of every interaction with native English speakers to learn something new. And no, I'm not under pressure, thank you. -- Gnomo |
John S Stuart 19.10.2004 12:52 |
Gnomo: "English is not my native language and I do not understand its subtleties too well, so I try to take advantage of every interaction with native English speakers to learn something new." Bl*ddy h*ell Gnomo, your English is better than mine! |
gnomo 19.10.2004 13:07 |
> your English is better than mine ... thank you, that's truly kind of you, but I have found out to my own expense that my English is still too poor for everyday conversation with native speakers - the language that a foreigner can learn from books is not what people actually speak, unfortunately... :-) -- Gnomo |
Hank H. 19.10.2004 13:10 |
now you ARE grovelling, John :-) let me join in, to spread some positive vibrations, and tell you that there is no-one on this board who writes in better English than JSS... "As I said, English is not my native language and I do not understand its subtleties too well, so I try to take advantage of every interaction with native English speakers to learn something new." That's exactly what I'm trying to do here. But GB doesn't seem to have much feel for foreign languages, just as he doesn't seem to be up to date concerning the gender debate in the 21st century. |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners 21.10.2004 02:56 |
Hello, my name is Don Rauba, and I'm a Queenzoner. ("Hi Don!!!") So that's my real name. Big Frickin' Mystery. So much for my anonymity. (gosh! I feel so naked without it!) Having revealed such top secret data, I predict that, nonetheless, in 30 seconds, everyone will forget it. Greg: does that really make you feel better? Somehow I doubt it. And I don't live in England, so I have no chance of delivering a critique to you in person on the street as you desire, I'm afraid. People abbreviate my chat name as GUMP, and I respond. I could use my own name, but some have argued it's not as funny as my "handle". Funny how creativity makes life more interesting to some... but not everyone has a sense of humor. Pity. Greg, your very ambitious book should have been re-edited a long time ago, and you know it. The fact that I spent hard-earned cash for it means that I have a right to be annoyed at the editor/author when it contains factual errors. That's the risk you take when you write a book: readers rightly hold errors against you. The possibility that you are too busy to undertake the enormous task of revision enters the mind, but doesn't make anyone feel any better about having plunked down good money for a book they can't quote reliably without additional research. I will restrain myself from comparing it to Mercury & Me, although the temptation to make this perfectly valid comparison exists. Last year, I read numerous internet email replies from you and was shocked at how often you seemed to lose your temper with people. But you sealed the verdict when you answered a fan question from someone on this board about It's a Beautiful Day (one question to which I actually cared to find the real answer). I wish the Search on this site worked for older posts, then I could quote it verbatim. But it was lost, apparently, and I can only tell you that it raised quite an interesting debate at the time. The question, simply paraphrased, was "when was IABD recorded". Your answer was something vague and inarticulate like "blah blah... Game sessions - yes, Freddie vox." To appreciate the frustration this caused, forget "the real answer" while reading the next paragraph, and focus on the question and the vagueness of the answer. It's clear the total song was likely recorded in parts, each part recorded at a different point in time. Those particular synths, e.g., could not have been from the Game sessions. So to say the whole thing was from the Game sessions is inaccurate because it generalizes too much. Your answer, to be clear, should have specified when the song was originated/conceived/demo'd compared with the sections that wound up included in the final mix on MIH, if known. For example, we still can't tell from your answer alone whether original vocal takes from Game session are the same ones used in the mix on the MIH album, or whether Freddie re-recorded them at some later point using the old Game session demos as inspiration. The same applies to the piano tracks. Another minor point, but one that illustrates the laziness I cited and the lovably avoidable nature of confusion, is that you can't even be bothered to spell out the word "vocals" fully (using "vox" instead), so that anyone who doesn't know Latin can't understand, either (and they haven't required it in public schools for ages, rendering it a thing of the past). My point is that tossing off a convenient, abbreviated, quick reply is (1) lazy, (2) misleading, and therefore (3) inaccurate, and leads to misquoting, rumor, and legend. And as an archivist, you should be supremely interested in the avoidance of confusion, doing everything you can to avoid the creation of it. When a Queen fan asks a question or makes a statement, don't look for meanings between lines and ulterior motives. Moreover, don't assume fans are simpletons, either; assume they're |
MisterCosmicc 16.02.2018 18:06 |
Not good |
Lord Fickle 16.02.2018 21:03 |
Bloody hell! You must have too much time on your hands, digging up a 14 year old thread for no apparent reason! :) |
thomasquinn 32989 17.02.2018 10:44 |
Yeah, this is really bad manners. You don't revive years-old threads unless you have something *really* meaningful to add. |
mooghead 17.02.2018 11:16 |
Prick. |
MisterCosmicc 21.03.2018 07:23 |
Haha |
Dr Magus 21.03.2018 10:26 |
The Call. |
MisterCosmicc 25.03.2018 08:32 |
46664 |