| Benn 16.03.2005 11:45 |
Had a read through this last night (well, the first few articles anyhow) and was shocked at the lack of new information / detail in it. I find it hard to understand how it can be described as a "special" edition when there is nothing new to be read. Did anyone find anything in there that was either interesting or informative r that you couldn't fnd in any other previosuly released Queen book? The writers even have the temerity to credit books like Queen The Early Years and As It Began for "additional material". |
| doremi 16.03.2005 11:54 |
I live in the USA so the Q/Mojo Special Edition has not hit here yet and I am waiting to read it, more so now after what you said. I however, was surprised at what I thought was the exact same thing with the Uncut Magazine. I thought the New interviews with Brian & Paul Rodgers were great. But I was quite disappointed in the article which quoted from other sources, told info most everyone already knows, had a ton of fact check errors, and was very tabloid in nature, especially towards Freddie I thought. It barely even discussed Queen's music, just their excesses. I wanted to know about their music and career. Oh well. Guess tales of excess sells better. |
| Benn 16.03.2005 12:18 |
Arlene, Expect much the same from the q "special" - tons of picture caption innaccuracies - yadda yadda. Who the hell employs these people and then actually thanks them....... Sheesh! |
| Fenderek 17.03.2005 05:15 |
I thiught it WASN'T THAT BAD. Nothing new- yeah. Mistakes- tell me about it. But... Dunno- wasn't that bad IMO- out of all MAGAZINE SPECIALS about Queen (plenty of them were don eafter Fred's death) that was the best one I saw. The interviews with B. and R. are really good IMO. |
| Benn 17.03.2005 06:56 |
Hah - I remember buying ALL of those special magazines after Fred died - all they were doing was cashing in on the furore. Same with this, but "slightly" higher quality - nothing better in terms of detail. I'm happier to wait for the NME Originals version that will inevitably appear - they have access to far higher quality material including better photographers who keep decent records. |
| forever 17.03.2005 18:40 |
I don't read books or magazines alot and don't have more than 2 Queen books, so I found this quite good and with lots of information I had either forgoten or didn't know. I also thought the layout of each section was quite good. But I was dissapointed with the buyers guide, as I thought there could have been more info about bootlegs and memorobilia and rare items! |
| Benn 18.03.2005 04:54 |
I also noticed this morning that at the top of the cover, it states "Special Collectors Issue" - like what????????? As for the buyers guide, you have to remember that QPL believe bootlegging to be grand larceny - they paid a tscit nod to the bootleggers with the recent "Top 100" releases via QOL, but it was hardly "beating" the bootleggers at their own game. People interested in live material will already have the titles that QOL are expecting people to PAY for and in no better quality. As I understand it, the number of downloads for each title has been ridiculously low. We're talking a couple of hundred tops. I'm going to mail the publishers of the magazine to ask them to justify their statements on the cover and will post the response (however unlikely it is that I receive one) here. |
| QMOJO 18.03.2005 06:57 |
Hi there. Good to see the magazine being discussed. I have some questions re: some of the earlier postings. Out of interest, what extra "detail" would you like to have seen in the mag? Likewise, rare items and memorabilia. Good to know this for future reference. Re: NME Originals and "photographers that keep better records. This is unlikely, as we all have access to the same photographers. And I don’t think any of them would mind me saying that as they shot so many bands, so many times, they often don’t know when pics were taken either. This makes it extremely difficult to date every pic accurately – hence errors in the final mag, I’m afraid. Sorry some of you didn’t like it. But, hey, we tried! |
| hcrvelin 18.03.2005 09:01 |
I just grabbed my copy of Q magazine during lunch. If first place I bought it for my girlfriend. She is fun, but she started to follow Queen after 1986. I think magazine editions like this are more for such people who will find more new information inside than others who actively followed everything related to Queen and person involved. Of course, I want to read new interview and I'm sure I will find something inside I missed before or simply forgot. I believe what fans sometimes forget (including myself) is that people buying someone's record are not necessary fans. I see the same with this Special. Die hard fans should not expect nothing new (except new interview which is fine). From that point of view this issue of magazine might be collectors one (as to collect everything related to Queen), but without many new news they feel down. That's classic with fans :) However, to make it really collectors edition I would love to see CD attached with some rare bootlegs or DVD with some rare photos, video, etc. I guess when preparing collectors edition for big names like Queen (and others too) that would be a small effort which Q/Mojo/you_name_it could do. |
| Fenderek 18.03.2005 09:27 |
Hi QMOJO- thanks for your effort, as I said- it was I think the best "special" I've seen so far. But apart from captions there were maaaaaaany mistakes all along. From top of my head: * John songs- you guys put DON'T TRY SO HARD in there which is not true. None of the songs on INNUENDO is John's. *You said in one place about THE SHOW MUST GO ON as being written by Freddie- again not true as it was Brian *There's plenty of mistakes in Buyers Guide Anyway- I don't have the mag with me- I can try and point out the most obvious ones by tomorrow, if you're interested. |
| Benn 18.03.2005 12:28 |
QMOJO, >And I don’t think any of them would mind me saying that as they shot so many bands, so many times, they often don’t know when pics were taken either. This makes it extremely difficult to date every pic accurately – hence errors in the final mag, I’m afraid. So that begs the question: Why caption pictures unless you are 100% certain about their accuracy? If nothing else, this leads "curious" fans (as opposed to die-hards) to accept what they see as being the truth, when infact, it's *nothing like it*. Do you have a team of proof readers that proof read everything you you print or do you out -source it to fans for special editions like this? |
| doremi 18.03.2005 13:33 |
As a journalist myself, I fact check over & over and proofread my copy...prior to my submission to the lovely (sarcasm) Editor...from there, it's anyones' guess. Here in the USA, the press has really been taken to task lately for this very topic. Lack of fact checks, not checking sources, lack of accuracy, etc. Here in the USA, this past year, --3---top level, HARD SERIOUS NEWS Reporters for the 3 Most Prestigious credentialed newspapers in the USA, were all FIRED for 100% fabricating and/or plagerising 100% of their News articles, over many years of their careers... Jayson Blair for The New York Times, Stephen Glass for The New Republic, and Mike Kelly for USA Today...yet how did they initially get work, establish and maintain their careers and get hired and keep their jobs for many, many years and get many, many promotions and great assignments...when they made up and plagerized every single article and interview they wrote... and this is Hard News folks, not music, arts, entertainment....but I have difficulty getting work and I am a 100% totally ethical, responsible, accurate, accountable journalist. I never write tabloid stuff either. I just don't get it. Oh, Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass now all have BIG MONEY book deals/tell alls about their scams...and I saw both writers interviewed on NBC TV's Dateline, to which the interviewers Stone Phillips and Katie Couric said to both reporters, "So crime Does pay huh. Plus you have no remorse for your actions." |
| *goodco* 18.03.2005 15:05 |
Rather's gang at CBS eff's up the facts on Dumbya's National Guard spotty as hell attendance record, and heads roll. GW's gang eff's up the facts of WMDs in Iraq, start a war, and Congressional Medals of Freedom are awarded, as well as promotions given (Rice, Wolfawitz, etc). It's all in who ya know. and I do wish some would fact check before writing about Queen on this NG j+III |
| doremi 18.03.2005 15:12 |
jgoodm wrote: It's all in who ya know. j+IIIDamn Straight... |
| TheDrown 18.03.2005 22:23 |
I was very depressed but not surprised about the Queen article in Uncut. It was litterally completely about decadence, parties, and drug use amongst Queen- not about music, concepts, behind the scenes facts about recording, etc. This is how it is... NME, Q, whatever, the lifestyle of a musician is what appeals to the common reader, apparently. I suppose it appeals to journalists because thats the sort of life they *wished* they had. To me, it's just nonsense. |
| Banquo 19.03.2005 05:00 |
A very good effort. However I must disagree with Paul Elliot's take on 'Black Queen containing the dubiuous use of thew word 'Nigger'. As we all should know 'Nigger Sugar' is actually an archaic word to describe raw cane sugar, thus its in keeping with the songs lyrics. |
| doremi 19.03.2005 11:38 |
TheDrown wrote: I was very depressed but not surprised about the Queen article in Uncut. It was litterally completely about decadence, parties, and drug use amongst Queen- not about music, concepts, behind the scenes facts about recording, etc. This is how it is... NME, Q, whatever, the lifestyle of a musician is what appeals to the common reader, apparently. I suppose it appeals to journalists because thats the sort of life they *wished* they had. To me, it's just nonsense. Arlene wrote: |
| Benn 21.03.2005 06:53 |
The Drown...... Unfortunately, that's what *most* people have been told about Queen in the past and is, sadly, what they are remembered for. That ridiculous quote from Francis Rossi about Freddie is just an example of the kind of think that a tabloid-based publication will print just to shift a few extra copies. Another example of the lack of attention to detail is the following: "(after the final Japanese date of 1982) nothing other than Under Pressure was ever played live again (or words to that effect)" Clearly incorrect when we all know that Staying Power was played at least once in Europe in 1984. The trick with magazine / newspaper articles is to read them and then think about what you *know" to be true already and then compare that against what you've just read. Anything that you read and you doubt, can pretty much be solved on a forum like this. My copy of the Queen "special collector's edition" is now winging it's way back to the publishers for a refund because it doesn't do what it says on the cover and is, therefore, contravening the Trades Description Act. |
| QMOJO 21.03.2005 12:01 |
hcrvelin wrote: [However, to make it really collectors edition I would love to see CD attached with some rare bootlegs or DVD with some rare photos, video, etc. I guess when preparing collectors edition for big names like Queen (and others too) that would be a small effort which Q/Mojo/you_name_it could do.You and I would both love to see a collectors’ edition with a CD attached of rare bootlegs or DVDs, but I cannot see a time when any major bands’ record label would sanction such a freebie. Nice idea, though. |
| Penetration_Guru 21.03.2005 15:48 |
I think that suggestion typifies this site at the moment. Unrealistic expectations & a desire to be "given" everything. How long do you have to monitor the two sites for feedback before the boss sends you off to the next artist (presumably whichever of U2/REM hasn't already been done) |
| Benn 22.03.2005 08:58 |
Sadly, the "easy" option for magazines like this is to just put out what they like, simply because people that are fans of a band will buy it, regardless of the content. I would imagine that if it were advertised as containing nothing new and plenty of errors, it would STILL shift the same numbers in terms of sales revenues. People will buy ANYTHING with the Queen name on it. The publishers won't ever be taken to task over factual errors, because they either can't be bothered or don't have the resource (ie experts) to be able to answer the questions posed after the event - they just worry about the amount of cash the thing generates. It's the same thing with QPL - they don't give a fuck what fans / people think about the way the back catalogue has been handled in the past. So long as the money keeps coming in, they won't ever justify what they do or don't to. They certainly will never give a straight answer to a straight question; does anyone know ANYONE that had had a response to a technical letter to QPL regarding the catalogue? So, QMOJO 1 - how do you explain the *FACTUAL ERROR" regarding the statement that nothing other than Under Pressure was played from Hot Space after the end of the Jap. leg of the Hot Space tour? 2 - have you received correspondance from people regarding the innacuracies contained within the magazine and, if so, how do you plan to address them? 3 - going forward, how will you ensure that other "special collector's editions" will feature similar glaring mistakes? |
| doremi 22.03.2005 12:29 |
Benn wrote: It's the same thing with QPL - they don't give a fuck what fans / people think about the way the back catalogue has been handled in the past. So long as the money keeps coming in, they won't ever justify what they do or don't to. They certainly will never give a straight answer to a straight question; does anyone know ANYONE that had had a response to a technical letter to QPL regarding the catalogue?I raise my hand to this hell ya! I've been telling you all that I have approached QPL and Hollywood Records in the USA about doing everything from a Queen Definitive Box Set, to a Queen New definitive Documentary, to getting Queen music licensed in various TV/film, to getting the Freddie Mercury 10 CD, 2 DVD 120 page book Solo Collection released in the USA.... (not the butchered 3 CD FM Solo Collection that is the only available version in the USA), ..to get this...getting/proposing a Special Exhibit honoring Queen in the USA at The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame & Museum in Cleveland, Ohio (which I also proposed to The Museum's Curator) that Queen are already inducted in, to timely coincide with both the Queen Breakthru North American Convention held in Cleveland August 2005, and striking while the iron is hot with the Queen/Paul Rodgers Tour, But all I get is blown off, and unsubstantiated letters with statements like not a good time, not enough interest, etc. |
| QMOJO 23.03.2005 04:19 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: I think that suggestion typifies this site at the moment. Unrealistic expectations & a desire to be "given" everything. How long do you have to monitor the two sites for feedback before the boss sends you off to the next artist (presumably whichever of U2/REM hasn't already been done)Keep up! We've already done REM! :-) I hang out here for pleasure. How did you think I knew about this site in the first place? |
| QMOJO 23.03.2005 04:22 |
1 - how do you explain the *FACTUAL ERROR" regarding the statement that nothing other than Under Pressure was played from Hot Space after the end of the Jap. leg of the Hot Space tour? It is just that: a factual error 2 - have you received correspondance from people regarding the innacuracies contained within the magazine and, if so, how do you plan to address them? Only competition entries, I'm afraid, 3 - going forward, how will you ensure that other "special collector's editions" will feature similar glaring mistakes? Our subs will be thrashed to within an inch of their lives. |
| Roger's Beard 23.03.2005 05:10 |
One other mistake in the magazine that I see SO often these days is the day Freddie left us. Has my memory faded or am I correct in my belief that the 24th Of November 1991 was a SUNDAY - NOT a Saturday as EVERYONE reports? I mean - stuff "where were you when Live Aid was on" - "Where were you when Freddie died?". I was waiting for the coach for my University trip to Amsterdam when some arrogant tit on the course ran up to me at 10pm and waved his radio in my face in utter delight that the world's greatest rock star had died (twat). Obviously I didn't believe him, but the papers next morning were full of it. That ruined my week away. I just wish I had a photograph of the dawn sky over Dover as it was magnificent - it looked like the visuals on all the religeous films - Jesus dies and the sky just lights up with magnificent colours. At least I've got the memory. |
| Benn 23.03.2005 07:51 |
QMOJO, Well, there you go - that's the definitive answer to the questions - no expansion on the theme or promise to "do better"? What more could we have expected? OK: 1 - SO, if it is "just" a factual error, why was it made? Who selects the people that compose material for the publication and how is their material fact-checked? 2 - How would you act upon correspondance from readers that take you to task? 3 - So you aren't going to do anything pro-actively to prevent people being hired that are capable of making such glaring mistakes? Please, be as full and comprehensive in your responses as possible. |
| QMOJO 23.03.2005 08:42 |
Our writers and sub-editors are selected on their knowledge of the subject matter in question. But nobody - including even the folks here - are infallible. Mistakes still get made in all magazines and newspapers and, in fact, in all forms of media. Were I to receive any complaints about these errors (which I have not), I would address them in the only rational way possible: with a sincere apology. We always strive to keep high standards of accuracy in all our special editions and this has been borne out by the positive response we have had to our previous magazines and by the positive e-mails and comments we have received from people who have purchased the Queen special – many, I would hasten to add, who subscribe to this and other Queen websites. Beyond that: there is no other action we can take. I feel that an apology and an admission of our mistake is sufficient. Yes, we got it wrong and it pains me that we did; we strive to produce the best magazine we can and our success is wholly reliant on the patronage of fans, such as yourself. We never lose sight of that. I don’t believe, though, that these errors destroy the worth or credibility of the whole magazine. However, there is another issue here: that it is just a magazine and a magazine about a rock band at that. This is not life and death we are dealing with here. Please let’s have a bit of perspective. You know, in a funny sort of way, I’ve enjoyed butting heads with you. I’ll miss this when I move on to the next thing…Anyone going to the Wembley show? Perhaps we can all meet in the bar! :-) |
| Benn 23.03.2005 10:27 |
That's exactly the kind of response I was looking for - thank you. In an odd way, I was struck by the difference in quality between the special compiled on The Who (almost NO factual errors and a production of wonderful quality) and the one on Queen (lots of factual errors and poor production). I just couldn't believe that there was so vast a difference between the two from the same publisher. But then again, two different bands and obviously two different sets of writers with better or worse factual knowledge of their subject than the other. It's great that these specials happen, but they are only worth their weight if they are factually correct, otherwise, you may as well just trust what you read in The Sun or AN Other tabloid as being factual. But......keep up the work that was done on The Who's special. |
| QMOJO 23.03.2005 11:36 |
Ah, but did you spot the mistake(s) in the Who special? LOL |
| Benn 23.03.2005 12:10 |
I haven't read it a third time, but I will - just for you. My "speciality" is The Who, so...... I'll get back to you. But, as stated somewhere before, I guess it is ONLY a magazine...... |
| QMOJO 23.03.2005 13:28 |
I love The Who. You know, Benn, I think you and I could become good pals after all. Now get reading – and I demand a full and comprehensive response by tomorrow morning. :-) |
| Lester Burnham 23.03.2005 13:41 |
Hmm, I'd be willing to assist in discovering the errors in The Who issue. I'll be sure to report back tomorrow. Yes, I am a Who freak. I have Who-rgasms, if you will. Wait, what? |
| Benn 24.03.2005 08:37 |
Lester, Mail me off-line if you will - sounds like you and I should talk about The Who. I just received some ultra-rare High Numbers studio recordings...... |
| Lester Burnham 24.03.2005 11:21 |
Benn wrote: Lester, Mail me off-line if you will - sounds like you and I should talk about The Who. I just received some ultra-rare High Numbers studio recordings......Gladly - I need your email address first though! :P |
| Benn 29.03.2005 06:25 |
benn@kempster.fsnet.co.uk |
| Soul Brother 30.03.2005 15:58 |
Hi QMOJO. Good to see that a serious journalist is actually connecting with a fan site on (as you say)free time. I like many others picked up the Special and thought it was pretty good (errors apart) but I guess you just come to accept that there are and will be errors in these types of publication. Thankfully this was a serious attempt to analyse various aspects of the band and not a change to take cheap shots like that pratt from the London Evening Standard (Queen never wrote any good songs and all that - getting technical, certainly not the case of several noteable music teachers in high positions have stated and gone onto to explain why this is crap). Regards future specials on bands/artistes and accuracy, perhaps this is time to create a fan focus group which can (in complete secrecy) read proof copies, provide comment and check captions etc for accuracy? I recall the debacle which Celtic FC ("The Hoops")up here in Scotland found themselves in several years ago when then they launched a new home kit which the green hoops weren't actually hoops which caused an outcry from the Parkhead faithful......not life and death but something worse as Bill Shankly would have said! Seriously though the club formed a fans strip focus group which are consulted on any new shirt the club launch - a lesson for your future specials.......cheaper and more accurate than consultants! |
| QMOJO 01.04.2005 11:48 |
Don’t know about a fans’ forum (you guys are crazy!… Just kidding), but this is a very good suggestion. Despite those niggling errors that creep in, we have in the past used “experts” to fact check and cast an eye over captions. We're not as blasé about accuracy as some here have suggested, we're just not infallible. Were we ever to ever dare to do anything else Queen-related, I now know where to look… |
| YourValentine 01.04.2005 15:34 |
Hello QMojo, my credit card was charged for the magazine on March 17th but the magazine has not yet been delivered, should I sue you? |
| Richard Orchard 03.04.2005 12:14 |
I'd like to say i really, really liked the magazine. |
| doremi 03.04.2005 13:33 |
The Q/Mojo Queen Special Edition is STILL NOT yet available in stores in the USA. I know it takes time for UK magazines to get over here...but really... |
| egret 03.04.2005 13:48 |
It was in St. Mark's Bookshop in New York City as of last week. |
| doremi 03.04.2005 14:59 |
New York being such a BIG city and the epicenter for the USA probably gets it first. I live in boring Maryland and I have been checking the stores in Washington DC and here right up to last night...Tower Records, Barnes & Noble, Borders still DON'T have it! Bloody hell! The waiting is driving me bonkers! |
| QMOJO 04.04.2005 05:20 |
YourValentine wrote: Hello QMojo, my credit card was charged for the magazine on March 17th but the magazine has not yet been delivered, should I sue you?No, but e-mail me here. special.projects@emap.com And I can look into this |
| YourValentine 04.04.2005 06:14 |
Okay, I emailed you, thanks |
| doremi 04.04.2005 14:27 |
I called Tower records, Borders, Barnes & Noble TODAY....and they STILL don't have it here in Maryland. Christ on a bike...I could swim across the Atlantic Ocean to the U.K. and get a copy of the magazine quicker!!!! |
| doremi 04.04.2005 19:32 |
I just bought it at our Independent record store chain in Maryland...Record & Tape Traders. Have skimmed through it and for the most part, I am VERY, VERY pleased. No tabloid stuff like that damn Uncut magazine. I found this VERY reverential, very fond and affectionate...yet very detailed, well put together, informative, Stupendous photos, yeah a few typos and errors, but minor, very thorough, great graphic layout and design, loved the special photos by Mick Rock & Denis O'Regan with their thoughts, loved the interviews with Roger & Brian. Esepecially Roger...as he rarely does in depth interviews nowadays and I really enjoyed what he had to say and as usual he still has his great sense of humor. Loved all of the tributes and thoughts about Freddie. Everybody read the tribute "Heaven For Everyone" about Freddie's last days...not tabloid at all, extremely reverential, moving, touching. Had me in tears but lovely. Nice archive interview with Freddie that ends with some incredible kidding innuendo double entendre by the ever puckish Freddie meister. Loved the best song lists (all of my 10 picks that I had emailed off to the magazine made it in!), the best concert list, the great stories, especially about the making of "BoRhap" and tjeir career defining performance at Live Aid. Really well done. Cost me $13 USA dollars and worth every penny!!!! |
| wstüssyb 04.04.2005 19:36 |
still no copy in Barnes and nobles here, I think chicago has it about now, they are about the same as NYC in terms of getting the goodies 1st. |
| doremi 04.04.2005 19:48 |
Everybody in the USA...try the INDEPENDENT record and book stores FIRST. The big chains like Tower, Barnes & Noble, Borders don't seem to have it yet. Both New York, and here in my native Maryland got it at independent record and book stores. |
| rachael mae. 05.04.2005 11:28 |
I got mine the other day.. had to wait a couple of weeks for it to be delivered though.. can anyone tell me, maybe email me, the picture caption inaccuricies.. cos I dont want to believe things that arent true |
| doremi 06.04.2005 18:10 |
<font color=#FF399>Somebody To Love Me wrote: I got mine the other day.. had to wait a couple of weeks for it to be delivered though.. can anyone tell me, maybe email me, the picture caption inaccuricies.. cos I dont want to believe things that arent truePage 88 has a photo of Freddie with Brian playing guitar, but the caption says incorrectly "Here's Freddie treating Roger to some air guitar in his black leather outfit". |
| rachael mae. 07.04.2005 07:03 |
Ooh, I noticed that one.. not too hard to tell the band members apart is it, Q/MOJO? |
| doremi 20.04.2005 20:29 |
<font color=#CC0066>SomebodyToLoveMe wrote: Ooh, I noticed that one.. not too hard to tell the band members apart is it, Q/MOJO?Page 76 Another error. Says Quote "On Thursday 22 November he (Freddie) asked Queen Manager Jim Beach to visit the house. Freddie spoke spoke lucidly to Beach for five and a half hours and told him of his plan to release a statement about his health. After keeping his condition secret for so long it was a significant change. That statement was issued the next day and Freddie died on Saturday 24, when another brief statement was issued." Error here... Freddie died Sunday November 24, 1991. |