| markaw 11.01.2005 18:20 |
Slightly different take on that beautiful song. I've noticed a lot of cynical comments about the reasons behind the 'tour'. How they (Queen/Paul)are doing a bit of a rip off the fans, more money yeah sort of attitude. Hey they have committments to you know-yeah big houses, cars,child maintenence etc but its all relative; my five pounds is their thousand....see? I'm not saying pay up regardless or accept eveything said, but we (today) are perhaps just a bit too cynical about peoples motives for doing things. Brian says its for the people to see some Queen stuff done live again but with a different singer and in a different style, ditto Free songs. Who are we to call him a liar....... Back to the title above-we've created a world that views everyone with contempt and mistrust..not everyone is on the make...or are they? I am not a woolly liberal but can't help thinking that society has become so 'I want it now' selfish, self-centered and venemous. You reap what you sow....'we made it on our own, is this the world we devastated right to the bone'. Just makes you think doesn't it?? |
| Scirocco1977 11.01.2005 18:23 |
You know who had the right idea? Russia! |
| markaw 11.01.2005 18:29 |
Hey I'm no commie either, thats not what I'm saying. Jesus Queen wouldn't have got off the starting blocks!!! |
| Scirocco1977 11.01.2005 18:42 |
I don't know. But I don't think that they are just touring for money. Is it such a lucrative way to make money? I don't think so... Also it is very strenuous. Therefore, they could start a few more musicals... They are doing it because they want to do it. And yes, I believe they are also thinking about the fans. By the way, does anybody know how much influence they have over the ticket prices? |
| Deacons 1st Choice 11.01.2005 18:47 |
Ticket prices are more then likely based on the costs for running and maintaining the tour. They will actually make very little out of it themselves once all is said and done, so this may be a good reason why the prices are steep....adding on a few more pounds to ensure it's made worth their while. |
| John S Stuart 11.01.2005 19:07 |
Scirocco1977: "...I don't think that they are just touring for money. Is it such a lucrative way to make money? I don't think so..." Having worked with some minor bands, I can tell you, that they are all in it for the money! Geez, that's how they make a living. That is why we use the prefix "PROFESSIONAL". This is a bit like saying that professional footballers only sign endorsements because they use the product - Right! If "Wilkinson's Sword" crossed David Beckham's hand with a few million quid his loyalty to "Gillette" would soon quickly evaporate. While you may be correct to say that some tours MAY "run at a loss", that is only PART of the picture. The overall picture is that they make more than enough profit from merchandising to make a very healthy profit. I personally know of quite a famous Celtic rock band who deliberately toured the USA "at a loss". However, the accountants had (correctly) figured that merchandising sales alone should bring the tour not only back into profit but ALSO generate new album and single sales, back catalogue album sales, generate a new lucrative market, and finally, raise the profile of the band in that territory. After all things being equal, this "loss making" tour generated over £500,0000 total profit. (Not bad for loss eh?). So just imagine how much better it must be for bands like the "Rolling Stones" who not only tour at a profit, but also generate further spin-offs like DVD, CD, TV rights and so on... My point is, I am not questioning the motives behind the tour, nor is anyone suggesting anything sinister or shouting "Conspiracy". But please remember that Professional musicians are professionals because that is how they make their (often very good) living, and not some heraldic angels delivering the gospel of Christmas in music and dance! |
| Scirocco1977 12.01.2005 06:16 |
Thanks John for this answer. Of course I do agree with most things said. However, I stick to my original statement that Queen are not touring because they think it is a good way to make more money. I am not saying they don't want more money. But there are other ways to make money in their position. The musical is doing fine. The DVD sales are not too bad... Also a tour generally is PR for the current album, isn't it? Didn't they create high standard videos for The Miracle because there was no tour? I have no information at all about PAul Rodgers so I am not talking about him. But Queen's last studio album is from 1991/1995 (and we kindly ignore the compilations). Also, I believe that at least 70% of all concert visitors will have the whole Queen catalogue already in their posession. And only few of them will buy it again...(except for the DVD-As) |
| Oberon 12.01.2005 08:19 |
I don't think £500,000 (or $) is that much profit from a tour really. Although that depends on how long a tour it was (i.e. how much effort is required by the band) and in the case of Queen, how is that money split? Presumably between the stakeholders in Queen Productions? Is that just the four of them or is Jim Beach a director? How much of that is retained in the busniess? Just because QPL gets half a million, doesn't mean that the boys get a quarter or fifth of that does it? It would be a paper profit but not an actual wad in the pocket profit. In fact that goes for all the reports of their wealth. I always wonder how much of the £50m they are supposed to be worth is tied up in QPL? Back to topic. I agree with the sentiment that what we reap is what we sow, but the problem is evolution. The human race has evolved too well and lots of the luxuries and inventions/conventions which are meant to benefit us actually cause side effects and disadvantages in terms of greed and expectations etc. Far too complex to go into and even harder to change. That's how I view it anyway |
| Sonja 12.01.2005 08:48 |
I don't think they're doing it for the money. They're doing it because they enjoy making music and playing live. More likely seems to me that they (Brian more than Roger) need a bit of self-affirmation, that they're still able to do it. The musical is doing well almost all over the world, they want more. And Brian's comments about criticism seem like a proof that what he needs is not money but success and commendation. And that's why I respect John so much, he's happy with what he has already achieved with the band, he doesn't seem to be in the need of an ego-boost, just to prove himself and the rest of the world that he's still talented. |
| Serry... 12.01.2005 09:40 |
Scirocco1977 wrote: You know who had the right idea? Russia!Sorry, mate, did you live in Russia? I live here and I can tell you for sure - idea wasn't right at some points! In the USSR you might not to work at all or work hardly through the days and get the same money for it etc. etc. etc. Though for lazy men it were great times :) |
| deleted user 12.01.2005 09:59 |
Wow... One of the best topics yet. I agree to all that. Do we want to hate everything everyone do?? Well just be happy people, both because of the tour and just that Brian and Roger are having fun again :) Well.. they wouldn't go on tour if they wouldn't like it :D They are also doing this for the fans. Especially the younger fans who weren't born or just to young to go on a tour last time they toured and Freddie was alive. Well I'm happy about it :) |
| markaw 12.01.2005 15:12 |
<font color="#009933">grapefruit</font> wrote: Wow... One of the best topics yet. |
| Las Palabras De Amor 12.01.2005 15:23 |
They're touring because they would like to after not touring at all for about ........19 years. |
| John S Stuart 12.01.2005 17:44 |
Oberon: "I don't think £500,000... is that much profit from a tour really..." It may not be that much if you are "Queen", but it is a hell of a lot for a minor league Celtic rock band! (Notice that I also removed your dollar sign becuase there is a BIG difference between a half million quid, and a half million dollars!). |
| Scirocco1977 12.01.2005 18:19 |
Serry Funster wrote:Actually this was a quote from That 70s show and meant to be ironical.Scirocco1977 wrote: You know who had the right idea? Russia!Sorry, mate, did you live in Russia? I live here and I can tell you for sure - idea wasn't right at some points! In the USSR you might not to work at all or work hardly through the days and get the same money for it etc. etc. etc. Though for lazy men it were great times :) When I was first introduced to the ideas of Communism in school, I thought it was a wonderful thing... It just doesn't seem to work. And there will always be people taking advantage of any system. I just thought that the opening post was saying that Brian and Roger are greedy. And I wanted to say that if you want money, then you have to work. And they are in the lucky position to do what they love and earn a few bucks, quids, whatever... So, no hard feelings? |
| markaw 12.01.2005 18:31 |
No mate I wasn't saying B+R were being greedy or knocking them, in fact the opposite-I want to see them and I ain't worried how much they earn. The point was that I'd read numerous posts about Brixton and the tour and PR, that were cynical and challenging BMs motives by saying they wanted to perform for the Queen fans-something I actually believe (BMs motives that is). It was some of the posters that I was digging at because of what they'd said and that it made me a little sad that nowadays we (society) are not prepared to take something at face value. Thats all really-oh and thought it might provoke a reasonable exchange of views-I think it has, what say you? |
| Serry... 13.01.2005 03:42 |
Scirocco1977 wrote:Okay, no problems! :)Serry Funster wrote:Actually this was a quote from That 70s show and meant to be ironical. When I was first introduced to the ideas of Communism in school, I thought it was a wonderful thing... It just doesn't seem to work. And there will always be people taking advantage of any system. I just thought that the opening post was saying that Brian and Roger are greedy. And I wanted to say that if you want money, then you have to work. And they are in the lucky position to do what they love and earn a few bucks, quids, whatever... So, no hard feelings?Scirocco1977 wrote: You know who had the right idea? Russia!Sorry, mate, did you live in Russia? I live here and I can tell you for sure - idea wasn't right at some points! In the USSR you might not to work at all or work hardly through the days and get the same money for it etc. etc. etc. Though for lazy men it were great times :) |
| Regor 13.01.2005 04:52 |
John S Stuart wrote: Scirocco1977: "...I don't think that they are just touring for money. Is it such a lucrative way to make money? I don't think so..." Having worked with some minor bands, I can tell you, that they are all in it for the money! Geez, that's how they make a living. That is why we use the prefix "PROFESSIONAL". This is a bit like saying that professional footballers only sign endorsements because they use the product - Right! If "Wilkinson's Sword" crossed David Beckham's hand with a few million quid his loyalty to "Gillette" would soon quickly evaporate. While you may be correct to say that some tours MAY "run at a loss", that is only PART of the picture. The overall picture is that they make more than enough profit from merchandising to make a very healthy profit. I personally know of quite a famous Celtic rock band who deliberately toured the USA "at a loss". However, the accountants had (correctly) figured that merchandising sales alone should bring the tour not only back into profit but ALSO generate new album and single sales, back catalogue album sales, generate a new lucrative market, and finally, raise the profile of the band in that territory. After all things being equal, this "loss making" tour generated over £500,0000 total profit. (Not bad for loss eh?). So just imagine how much better it must be for bands like the "Rolling Stones" who not only tour at a profit, but also generate further spin-offs like DVD, CD, TV rights and so on... My point is, I am not questioning the motives behind the tour, nor is anyone suggesting anything sinister or shouting "Conspiracy". But please remember that Professional musicians are professionals because that is how they make their (often very good) living, and not some heraldic angels delivering the gospel of Christmas in music and dance!But still it is different from other careers: As a musician first and foremost you want to play. Be it in the rehearsal room, at home, or on a stage in front of an audience. Musicality comes first. Professionalism (in the sense of doing it for a living) way behind. There are certain stages of development before musicians call themselves "professional" - and also different ways of actually being a "Pro": Session musicians, people who have long-term engagements with a studio, a hotel, a cruise-ship or a bar, and members of dance bands, orchestras, solo entertainers playing at birthdays, weddings and so on - these are all professionals in the truest sense of the word. They have to do it for a living because they chose so. There is less creative self-realisation or artistic ambition - but STILL it's not like "I work in an office and yeah... I kinda like my job". Music is something you have in your veins, and even the aforementioned started in music because it's a passion. And somewhere along the way it became a profession. Our boys formed a band, BUT they did not want to play Top 40-hits in a Hotel-lobby ! They wanted to make - and in that sense "create" - music ! Of course they also wanted to become rich and famous, but I am absolutely convinced that all of them would have been into music at least as a hobby, even if there was no "beast called Queen". But it became their profession on a totally different level - not as a regular employment in some institution like mentioned above, playing other peoples' stuff. Some people were even assuming that the production for the musical is too expensive, and their standards of living are too glamourous, so they go on tour because they need the money... thats utter nonsense ! They could have stopped recording and touring in 1976 or 1977, and could definitely still live on their success - not in their current standards, but without a nine-to-five-routine. That's a fact. Per |
| bas asselbergs 13.01.2005 06:48 |
a ticket (excl the trip and so..) would cost some 60 pounds, or almost 100 euro... when i went to see Queen WITH Freddie, the tickets were 65%-85% cheaper! Ofcourse Queen will make enormous profits, and try to break income-records again. Madonna got 95.000.000,- for her tour, Prince 55.000.000,- so who says that this ticketprice will only cover for the maintenance of the tour? Don't forget that Queen STILL owns all the lighting equipment and so, so hardly any new investments are being made by them , and most likely ( like in the old days, and more recently the Amsterdam show and the musicals) will be payed by main sponsor Heineken again...Queen will make a hell of a lot money, i tell you ! TV and radio rights, merchandise...the cd and dvd ofcourse....will be like the Brian May band or the SAS band i guess, with Paul being the only change in the line-up.... i expect Eric Singer drums, Spikey, Jamie,Fabba-girls, Brian and Roger ofcourse, hopefully on a few occasions John (please light all your candles to make that happen!)Steve Strout maybe then...i do not expect big changes, and it will be a pleasure to hear some new material, as they got some songs out of the vault and work on them right now....will be a surprise to hear the originals with freddies voice then!!! That is after all what WE, the fans want.... NOBODY can sing better than Freddie, but lets give Paul some credit....after all, HE is THE CHOSEN ONE....and nobody but Brian and Roger can judge that or make that descision.... |
| Goo 13.01.2005 16:18 |
I don't think there is any doubt that money is a big factor on this tour. If they made no profit, then I'm quite sure they wouldn't bother. However . . . Money cannot be their only motivation for this. It just wouldn't make sense. Consider all of the effort needed to put into a tour like this. Actually, even just putting on one good show can be hugely demanding, and takes an incredible amount of physical and mental energy. As many have already said, they are already very well-off, and I'm quite sure they wouldn't put so much effort into this if money were the only thing they gained. Also, is it really such a negative thing if their only motivation is money? I mean, as long as they put on a good show, why should we care? We're getting enough out of this, I think it's a bit much to demand of them if we want them to have purely moral and honourable reasons, without making money a factor. They have every right to care as much as they want about financial gain IMO. Some people exploit less fortunate people, and then environment, to make money; Bri an Rog entertain the world. That's good enough for me. |
| Awesome-O _4000 13.01.2005 19:20 |
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt... I mean, some here have accused them of that, but is it really fair to say they can't ever have that feeling again that they once had when they were up on stage in front of tens of thousands of people? That's what they want. I agree w/ you. Good topic. |