| on my way up 09.07.2005 13:40 |
I haven't got the old version but I've heard many complaints about it.Now i found the new version and I have some questions.He mentions two shows that have been filmed(vienna&osaka from 1982 and he also says that the first night in vienna was also filmed in its entirety.Why didn't they put on any of this footage on Queen on fire?I was also disappointed when I read there was only 10% or so from the gigs recorded.That's only 70 gigs or so.He has had full acces to the queen-archives but actually there isn't too much info.That's not a good sign.He could have put more reviews and stuff into his book and credit mr.Scully for the info he got from him:-) |
| Serry... 09.07.2005 14:10 |
Vienna and Osaka footages are on QOF, but in incomlete form. Osaka's show in more complete version is on officially released VHS. They used tapes which have been sent from Japan and from ORF, I guess - that's the answer. About 70 gigs - he probably meant soundboard recordings, not fan ones. |
| on my way up 09.07.2005 15:11 |
nono.This are not the answers to my questions.The shows from on fire are others than the one he mentions.The seibu lions stadium-gig was on 03/11 in tokyo,not osaka!and the vienna-gig was the first night,not the second.Greg says in his book that vienna13/05 and osaka24/10were filmed for the queenarchive.It is odd hat there 's no footage of it on the dvd'isn't it?the archivist says it exists.He also says frankfurt was filmed.It would have been great additions to the dvd. |
| Serry... 09.07.2005 15:20 |
I'm sorry then |
| The Real Wizard 10.07.2005 01:53 |
The new book still has hundreds of errors, both factual and grammatical. Greg refused to include most of my corrections, for whatever reason. 70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard. The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap. It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget. I respectfully declined. I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think? |
| Serry... 10.07.2005 03:29 |
Me and Fenderek have tried to compile mistakes from this book on one of the threads in this forum, but someone said that we... well... that we're wrong with our 'project', because Greg wrote it in 1994 and it explains a lot. |
| wstüssyb 10.07.2005 03:45 |
Maybe he did write in in 1994, so that means he had about 11 years to get the fucking facts stright, with 30 or so people helping him he still fucks it up. |
| bitesthedust 10.07.2005 04:08 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: The new book still has hundreds of errors, both factual and grammatical. Greg refused to include most of my corrections, for whatever reason. 70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard. The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap. It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget. I respectfully declined. I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?go for it! just one question though - I've got the new edition and according to that, Liar was NOT played at Frankfurt 29/04/1982 but my recording does include it, right after Somebody To Love. Was Liar played that night or not? |
| Tim Goossen 10.07.2005 04:15 |
go for it! just one question though - I've got the new edition and according to that, Liar was NOT played at Frankfurt 29/04/1982 but my recording does include it, right after Somebody To Love. Was Liar played that night or not?the bootleg you're referring to is from 28/04/1982 and that night Liar was played... as can be heard ;-) Cheers, Tim |
| bitesthedust 10.07.2005 04:17 |
so, Greg has decided for whatever reason to omit it from the setlist? |
| Mr. Scully 10.07.2005 04:41 |
"Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard." That's pretty much the same as Jim Jenkins also told me... although he said that they started recording later than in 1974. So let's assume that everything since 1976-1977 has been recorded. And I agree that it's strange that he wants others to correct all his mistakes and then all the profit goes into his pockets again. As I already said in some other threat - next time I will help him (or allow him to use my stuff) only under very strict conditions. It's nice to be credited in an almost official book but I can live without that if I feel he's abusing my work. |
| John S Stuart 10.07.2005 07:54 |
Welcome to my world. First let me state that some of the most influential posters in here have done nothing special. The work from Mr. Scully, the Live Killer contributions by Sir GH, the musical ears of Sebastian, and even my own Ultimate Collection series – are far from unique or important. This is because, like Magpies, we have done nothing more than collected the best information available. This information has been neither restricted nor exclusive, and anyone who has had a mind to – could have equally came up with similar, if not better contributions. What separates the above contributors from the pack is that theirs has been a labour of love and through hard work and diligence, have created the best tapestry available under the all too limited circumstances of their study. This I say – not to denigrate the above guys – but to applaud and compliment their efforts under such difficult conditions. For example, could one imagine how much better Sebastian’s efforts would be, if he had access to the studio logs, or Martin’s contributions if he had access to those soundboard recordings? Nevertheless, amateurs we remain, building a picture, only from the spoiled blocks, which remain leftover. Second, I have nothing against GB per say. I do not really know the chap, and it is against my genial personality to denigrate or hold grudges, therefore, I am not going to be lulled into saying anything negative against the fellow. However, I am really disappointed that for someone who has access to so much exclusivity – that his research falls so short of the mark. So short in fact, that he shamelessly plagiarises the work of amateurs to disguise his own professional inadequacy. This is NOT an indictment against GB – but more so against Queen Productions. If by chance Sir GH, or Mr Scully were to decide to produce a future Queen Live publication, they will find that they are legally restricted from doing so, because QP under the guise of Mr. B will have copyrighted their own efforts against them. I also refuse to be drawn into leaked master tape sessions, (stories of Munich, and whispered USA connections), or stolen Ibex material, but suffice to say, that I abhor such dark worlds, and spider like webs, spun to dazzle and seize unsuspecting prey. Finally, It seems that for years I have had to live with the negative image of envy and jealousy, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is I am angry. I am angry that the likes of Mr. Scully has been intellectually ripped-off (ultimately) by Queen Productions, without so much as an acknowledgement on a thank you page. I am angry that an archivist who has access to Primary sources, is too lazy to utilise this resource, and would rather depend on the inferior offerings from dedicated fans. I am angry that Mr. B is viewed as some sort of Queen academic, while in reality, he is quite happy to sit back and not only let Sir GH correct his shoddy research for him, (even though Sir GH has no access to master materials), but steal the financial rewards and kudos which Sir GH would correctly deserve. But I guess I am really angry, that we as amateurs, offer a better service than the official Queen channels, and for that I am really disappointed, because I for one rate my own work as third or fourth tier at best, and I really look forward to some first tier insight. Unfortunately, I do not believe that such quality of service (I suggest a quick scan of Mark Lewisham’s: Beatle’s Recording Sessions) will ever be made available. Therefore, we return to where this rant began, with my thanks for Mr. Scully, Sir GH, and yes, even Sebastian. Perhaps from time to time we will get it wrong. Perhaps, we will on occasion have to return and amend our previous writings, but one thing for sure is that we try to deliver our best under curtailed circumstances, and in NO way would we ever DELIBERATELY lead the readers of this zone astray. |
| Sebastian 10.07.2005 10:31 |
Excellent post John, and thanks for your nice comments about me. They've geniunely encouraged me to pick up my research again and bring it out in circulation asap. I'm quite nonaligned in this titans quarrel. Neither do I have anything against Mr. Brooks, nor JSS. I agree the budget point is bizarre and QP certainly don't mind the mediocrity of their officially-approved publications. Just check QOL: gorgeous package, rather bare gist. For what it's worth, speaking of myself, I'm actually glad that none of my information has been attained from exclusive sources. Aside from the mails David Richards sent me three years ago, absolutely every bit of my data is easily verifiable, everybody's got entree to the same records I use for musical scrutiny and the totality of the quotes have been acquired via internet (albeit a good part of them have had to be translated from Japanese but still...) And I feel pleased, because that way the actual audience performs the labour of quality control. The one thing I disagree about Greg - and it's not his blunder at all - is that since he's "official" he can state Fred sang the first verse of WWTLF and many people accept it as divine axiom. I'm not covetous, if anything, I'm utterly satisfied that each one of our well-liked "plinths" have been earned. Greg certainly pioneered what Martin did, case in point, as many certainly led the way for me. Interactivity allowed visitors to tweak mistakes in queenconcerts and - he can correct me if I'm wrong - that's partly the groundwork for its unmatched excellence. I personally rely more in a research I can confirm by myself rather than one I'm constrained to swallow. |
| Fenderek 10.07.2005 13:16 |
Bob- fuckin go for it. He has the acces to so many sources and he still delivered a dud. I'm sure fans (you, Martin, few others) can come up with much better stuff... BTW- Excellent post, John. |
| Saint Jiub 10.07.2005 13:24 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?I also think you should in some way balance it with the corrections that Greg actually made in his new book. How improved is his book? Is it 95% accurate compared to 90% before? Does the new book correct 20 errors but still have hundreds of errors? I probably will not buy Greg's new book, as I have the old one, but I would like to know what corrections are now included in his new book. It seems ridiculous to buy the revised book when very little has changed. |
| agneepath! 11994 10.07.2005 14:26 |
play.com are selling it for £5.99 link |
| John S Stuart 11.07.2005 07:19 |
I Wonder how much of this £5.99 will go to GB and how much deserves to go to Mr. S? |
| Fenderek 11.07.2005 07:24 |
What is pathetic is the fact that he told Bob (Sir GH) that there is no budget. Who's gonna get the money than? Greg I guess... So he wants a fan to do the editing and than... get the royalties. Do I understand it right? Unless the money goes for the charity- I find it PATHETIC!!! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 11.07.2005 08:43 |
I do corporate work for a living. A lot of my clients always use the "there's no budget" line, meaning do it as good as you can for as cheaply as possible. Then again, my clients haven't generated one to billion dollars in revenue over their career. I find Greg's statement about the budget to be as embarassing as the errors in the book. How did QP get hooked up with people like the Torpedo Twins and Greg Brooks anyway? I love reading stuff on this site from informed people, and sure some of the great contributors like Mr. Scully, Sebastian, Adam Baboolal, Sir GH and of course John Stuart would do an amazing job given Greg's resources. What a shame. |
| Fenderek 11.07.2005 08:51 |
BHM 0271 wrote: How did QP get hooked up with people like the Torpedo Twins and Greg Brooks anyway?This is something I'm asking myself so often... Rare Live, Queen Live by Greg- the same story, isn't it? I remember Greg writing in first edition of his book about Rare Live, criticising it... Ironic, his publication almost reaches its standard... |
| Boy Thomas Raker 11.07.2005 09:06 |
Honestly, Fenderek, I think that Queen's enthusiasm (as documented in The Magic Years, with Roy Thomas Baker discussing how they always pulled together for the good of the band) waned in the 80s, and they went from a great album band to a singles band that appeared to be more interested in charting and selling shitloads of records than producing quality goods. I thought that through the Elektra years, Queen's attention to details and doing things properly for artwork to promotion and everything else was second to none. Then they got shoddy. I couldn't wait to hear the Hollywood CD releases in '91. ANATO and NOTW were amongst the first releases. My all time fave Queen song is probably 'It's Late.' I popped the CD in (my first CD's ever), went straight to 'It's Late", and found the first chord missing. I'm not being petty, that is inexcusable, and it flows straight back to QP. The errors on Hollywood's first releases are well documented, and don't need rehashing. However, there is ultimate responsibility for letting inferior product on the market, and that's not the call of a record company, it's QP, and they should be embaraased by some of their business decisions in the past 20 years. |
| Benn 11.07.2005 11:07 |
> However, there is ultimate responsibility for letting inferior product on the market, and that's not the call of a record company, it's QP, and they should be embaraased by some of their business decisions in the past 20 years. At the end of the day, it's a quality control issue. Who is responsible for fact checking material? When a re-release is planned, who is responsible for FINALLY allowing the finished masters out into the shops - does anyone (for example the Hollywood series) bother to sit down for a couple of days and LISTEN to everything? Do Brian, Roger & John get to hear anything before it hits the shelves as they would have done in creating new music? Clearly that didn't happen and it didn't happen with The Magic Years or Champions Of The World or Queen Rocks. GB is a part (and cause in part) of the malaise that exists within the camp. Queen fans will buy pretty much anything with the Queen name on it - from badges and t-shirts to incredibly expensive wall cabinets with the CDs in that you already have in your jewel cases. because of that, they believe that they buyer pretty much exercises no controls over their spending and the organisation believes that theycan make a buck or two because of that. As time goes on, they become SO relaxed about it that quality control goes out of the window. What I fear is that any 30th Aniversary release of an expanded ANATO is going to feature EXACTLY the same issues described above an dwill untimately disappoint. You'd hope that "everything possible" is being done to ensure that this is a landmark release and of the highest quality. Somehow, I believe that it's gone past the point where "the organisation" actually gives a shit. |
| Fenderek 11.07.2005 11:11 |
Benn wrote: Somehow, I believe that it's gone past the point where "the organisation" actually gives a shit.You can't imagine how much I would love to believe it's not true and so badly would love to be prove wrong...? Somehow don't think this will happen... |
| The Real Wizard 12.07.2005 01:20 |
bitesthedust wrote: so, Greg has decided for whatever reason to omit it from the setlist?Pretty much, yeah. There are dozens of (perhaps over a hundred) cases in his books of making up setlists, because nobody can completely prove him wrong. He is in quite a convenient position. RIP Van Winkle: I haven't read the entire new book yet. In fact, I'm only as far as 1976, and I'm already pretty disgusted with what I've read. Still there are dozens of errors. I can't believe he still claims KYA was played on 9-13-73, and that they didn't perform In The Lap Of The Gods (Revisited) in Manchester 75. It makes you wonder if he has access to any soundboards from this tour, if they exist at all, or if he didn't bother to change this entry for reason X. Either way, what kind of Queen live expert doesn't understand the basic fact that Queen closed the set with ITLOTG...R until they had something better - We Are The Champions? What a disgrace to the intellect of dedicated Queen fans. John SS: Amazing post, and thanks so much for your kind words for me, yet again. No need to reiterate anything here. Many of your comments completely hit home with me. You also made many great and necessary points about Greg and QP, and I'm glad you could be so open about it all. Okay everybody, here's my long term plan: To create a piece of work completely devoted to the works (or lack there of) of Greg Brooks. I will point out those errors which were corrected in his new book, and those which were not corrected. I will be very careful in separating *facts* from *things I'd like to be facts*, possibilities, and utter fallacies. I will be sure to offer much praise where it is necessary, but mark my words, I will not fall short in the area of criticism. John: I would like to quote some of the things you said in this topic (perhaps as part of a preface, or similar), and I would appreciate your expertise in places where I may not be able to prove certain things on my own. Martin: I would like to collaborate with you on this, and post my final product on your site. Your site receives over 100x more traffic than mine, so naturally your site would be the place where the most people would be able to see this. Perhaps we could add comments to your individual concert listings that we'd both agree on, and welcome input from others in doing this. Both of you, please let me know what you think of these ideas. I want the wide world of Queen fans to know that there are hard-working amateurs who have a passion for the band's work, and are willing to put forth much more effort than those closely affiliated with the band. Queen fans deserve a resource where they can find EVERYTHING at once, full of facts, and only facts. Queenconcerts.com is the closest thing we have to that, and here's possibly the next idea to make it even better. Without this sounding like a hate campaign, I think this is starting to sound like a project that would inevitably render the work of Greg Brooks obsolete. Perhaps it may be the piece of work that will prompt Greg to once and for all open his mouth and give us some real information about what truly lies inside the Queen archives. What does everyone else think? |
| Mr. Scully 12.07.2005 03:37 |
Details and plans would have to be discussed first. I don't want anything like "Greg's book is shit, this is a replacement". But I want my site the become the ultimate source about Queen concerts (if it hasn't become already). So any corrections or additions are always welcome. If my site becomes (or already is) a better source than Greg's book, it's nice. But it's not my primary goal. I don't want any competition, I just want to provide the most accurate info. And let's face it, my database currently IS the most accurate Queen concertography that exists. If it included info about what Freddie said at the concerts (that's the only thing Greg's book includes and my site doesn't), then Greg's book would become useless. |
| The Real Wizard 12.07.2005 04:10 |
Mr. Scully wrote: Details and plans would have to be discussed first. I don't want anything like "Queen Live is shit, this is a replacement". But I want my site the become the ultimate source about Queen concerts (if it hasn't become already). So any corrections or additions are always welcome. If my site becomes (or already is) a better source than Greg's book, it's nice. But it's not my primary goal. I don't want any competition, I just want to provide the most accurate info.I understand that, but look at it this way: Greg has used a lot of our work for something which he alone is currently profiting from. If he can go public with a new edition of a book which is highly composed of our work, then why can't we go public doing a similar thing, but better? All we would need to do is credit his work appropriately, just as he did for us. Yes, his book is copyrighted, but in all logic, he cannot copyright all of that information to be purely his own. The fact that Queen performed at the Hammersmith Odeon in London on 12-24-75 is not the intellectual property of one Greg Brooks. So there exists this fine line between what is "his" information and what is "everybody's" information. In the preface, he made it clear that without three sources claiming something to be true, it would not be added to the book. Yet there are thirty people posting at this forum alone who would debate several things said in his book. Greg did not speak with me specifically about any of my proposed changes, many of which could have also been suggested by others. Now I wonder, did he treat others this way as well? It makes me wonder how much he was willing to be proven wrong by "amateurs". He just said "thank you", and I didn't hear from him until he informed me that the book was done. I tried contacting him a few times about such matters, but each time his email address appeared to be down. I am suspicious of this. But regardless, I missed out on those intermediate steps, and now I want to find another way to take those steps, with other people. Updates need to be made, and I want them to be made as public as possible. I feel completely ripped off by this man. I do not want Greg to be widely known as the ultimate Queen expert, simply because his books make it clear to certain amateurs like you and I that he is not. Just because he has access to a few more recordings than we do does not make him the Queen expert of Queen experts. Read between the lines, my friend. I think this is huge. And let's face it, my database currently IS the most accurate Queen concertography that exists. If it included info about what Freddie said at the concerts (that's the only thing Greg's book includes and my site doesn't), then Greg's book would become useless.Unfortunately, much of these comments are examples of copyrighted material, as they are sourced from soundboard recordings belonging to Queen. There's no going around that, until any of those concerts are officially released on cd or DVD, which of course will probably not happen. But again, if he can cite some Freddie comments from bootlegs, then why can't we? Furthermore, how could he prove that we don't have audience recordings of those shows he updated as such? Exactly, he can't. Martin, let me know what you think after reading all this. Is there anyone else here who is serious along with me? |
| cmi 12.07.2005 04:41 |
link is really ultimate site. But with one minus. It is impossible to find exact setlist with correct order of songs for any unusual concert with rare tracks or something. |
| Mr. Scully 12.07.2005 04:52 |
CMI - setlists are always a problem. We can either (1.) include setlists from our recordings (may be incomplete) or (2.) guess the setlists (and that's quite a big mistake that Greg did in his first edition of Queen Live). GH - I can imagine we couldn't use only the comments about soundboard recordings (that we don't have access to). Or we can use them and credit the source. I don't know what are the rules for that - I think you can cite only some certain amount of words or something. Btw. I definitely don't consider myself, Greg or you experts on live recordings :) But I think all of us know something and if we put our "parts" together, we know a lot. There are some people I would love to see cooperate - Riku is a perfect example of somebody who knows a lot (and is a good friend ;-) |
| djaef 12.07.2005 05:03 |
I'm nobody in the context of this conversation, but I have to tell you guys (John, Bob, Martin, Sebastian) that people like you are, to me, the most inspirational thing about Queen that is left. You guys represent the passion. Queen's music awoke and inspired so much passion in my life, and over the years we saw the quality falling away and rampant commercialism taking over. That degrades the brand. I applaud the recent live efforts, but my passion remains with the music of the past. It is people like yourselves, incredibly knowledgeable, dedicated, passionate fans and researchers that inspire me to continue my love affair with this band. People like Greg Brooks and his riddled-with-errors-Queen-Productions-approved book leave me cold. The machine is making way too much noise these days. The process has been automated and the product suffers badly from it. The real heart of the Queen enterprise is now here, amongst the fans. Brian and Roger may reclaim it one day if they ever deign to release a surprising and satisfying box set, but judging them on their recent form, I'm not holding my breath. I am very curious about the legal limitations on the publication of a book detailing Queen's live career. John, your post was wonderfully articulate and informative, but can they seriously stop anyone from publishing such a work? And a better question: Why on Earth would they want to? If leaglly possible, Sir GH should write his own book. It would no doubt outsell GB's 10 to 1. If that is legally impossible, it is a sad state of affairs indeed that QP keeps on rewarding the wrong people. I too think that queenconcerts is a stellar resource, and I use it almost daily. I'm sure that all Queen fans would applaud it being updated or added to in any way, and I can certainly see the logic of several of the most knowledgeable archivists and researchers putting their heads together. The mediocrity of the product coming from Queen's relationship with the DoRo guys always annoyed me as well. You only ever get one chance and with Queen, so many were wasted... These days, it's QOL turn at doing its best to mediocratise the legacy. I can only encourage all of you passionate fans out there to continue doing what you do, because without you, this band would lose thousands of fans, including myself. I've never been a fan of the machine, and QP has been heading in that direction for many years. Sites like this and people like us are what keeps the blood flowing in the veins of this band's fanbase. Keep up the good work. |
| John S Stuart 12.07.2005 05:47 |
Sir GH: "...I would like to quote some of the things you said in this topic (perhaps as part of a preface, or similar), and I would appreciate your expertise in places where I may not be able to prove certain things on my own." JSS: That is why I post my "Ultimate Collection" threads. I want the best possible resource (or checklist) out there to help all collectors - large or small - to find something they may be looking for - or better still to provide additional information about material that may be news to them. So ofcourse you can use my material. All I would ever ask for is a courtesy credit, which is something I would do anyway if the roles were reversed. Sir GH: "...Queen fans deserve a resource where they can find EVERYTHING at once, full of facts, and only facts. Queenconcerts.com is the closest thing we have to that, and here's possibly the next idea to make it even better... Perhaps it may be the piece of work that will prompt Greg to once and for all open his mouth and give us some real information about what truly lies inside the Queen archives. JSS: Here, here, I totaly agree, but with one minor provisio. Not detracting from Martin's site (which I have a great admiration for) I think it wrong that such ideas be the exclusive property of one owner. I think that once these "ideas are out there", that they should be freely available on Martin's, on Bob's or on Queenzone. (Or if i was ever to get up off my lazy ass - I could make a site too!). This is not about personal ego, or better sites, (at the end of the day I would probobly still use Martin's site as a reference) but making information PUBLICALLY available, and if we go down that road, it should be freely available, and not just the exclusive property of one individual. Perhaps interactive links could be an idea, but I digress, the point is - I agree, and also think it is a good idea. |
| Fenderek 12.07.2005 05:52 |
Bob- you can't imagine how much I'd love to help. Unfortunatelly all I can do is make some coffee ;) Anyone? :)
Great innitiative, IMO. It IS huge (or can be).
djaef wrote: and I can certainly see the logic of several of the most knowledgeable archivists and researchers putting their heads together.Here, here!!! I haven't heard a better idea in years |
| Mr. Scully 12.07.2005 06:02 |
There's one main thing that I blame Queen (Productions) for - total ignorance of the fan sites which are doing for the popularity of the band much more than all UK journalists together. Yet it will be the journalists who will get the backstage passes and VIP tickets and interviews and... On the other hand, it leaves us a lot of independence and freedom. I'm allowed to say "Queen really fucked up concert XY" (and I have absolutely no problem with saying that - honesty is much more important for me than loyalty). If I was in the position of Greg, I could never say that (or else I'd be fired immediately). So if the situation stayed like this + if I was allowed to ask the band some questions or do interview with them, I would be happy. But I'm not Greg Brooks, "only" a Czech guy so there's no chance I can get answers to questions that are interesting for me, or even for the whole fan base. |
| Benn 12.07.2005 06:04 |
Scully, re: > GH - I can imagine we couldn't use only the comments about soundboard recordings (that we don't have access to). Or we can use them and credit the source. I don't know what are the rules for that - I think you can cite only some certain amount of words or something. Wouldn't make any difference - a board recording that's hit the street as a bootleg is the same as an audience recording that has become a boot. After all, there's nothing stopping you putting a quote from one of the band members at a show on your site and just saying somethign along the lines of "And a fan remembered hearing "x" say.......", is there. Your site IS the encyclopedia - Greg has plagiarised this material and should bloody well be outed as having done so. Perhaps Omnibus Press would be interested in receiving some examples of material that he is claiming is his own...... I have a good contact (through The Who) at Omnibus and if you would like me to pass him anything along these lines, please mail me at: benn@kempster.fsnet.co.uk |
| John S Stuart 12.07.2005 06:41 |
"Danger Will Robinson..." I think that the only danger which remains is how such a collaboration will be percieved by fellow fans. Sir GH: "Without this sounding like a hate campaign, I think this is starting to sound like a project that would inevitably render the work of Greg Brooks obsolete." To be honest, This is my main concern. While I have continually stated that I have no problems with Mr. B, there are still those who think that some mafioso type fued exists between us (and for me at least) this is not so. While Martin may be free to say; "Queen really fucked up concert XY", to say the same against the Official Archivist is a far more serious cardinal sin. Mr B. is not the most understanding of people, therefore, while providing your "information to the masses" may be laudible, you do realise, that you will be stroking yourself off his Christmas card list! |
| Benn 12.07.2005 06:51 |
JSS, re: >>Sir GH: "Without this sounding like a hate campaign, I think this is starting to sound like a project that would inevitably render the work of Greg Brooks obsolete." >>To be honest, This is my main concern. Why should that concern you? Surely the whole idea of it is to be able to render incorrect / incomplete information / publications obsolete as better and fuller information surfaces? Doesn't each new mastering of ANATO render the previous one obsolete because it's in a better format /sound quality? I approached Omnibus a number of times with book projects surrounding The Who - whilst they were lauded as being great ideas, it was felt that the Internet was a far better medium in which to publish material as it can be more easily maintained / updated and it can also be far more interactie than any book can ever be. It would be interesting to see the sales figures for Queen Live - I would imagine that it only sold to Queen fans -the reprint probably even less so after all the errors contained in the first print. I fail to understand why we are being so generous and forgiving of someone that has blatantly stolen other people's intellectual property and clearly shown no regard for the intellect of fans that are his target audience by failing to produce something that is factually correct. |
| John S Stuart 12.07.2005 07:04 |
Benn: What a positive posting. If I was a footballer, I would certainly want you defending behind me! I guess the truth is I am a coward - as I hate conflict, and I am quite happy to negotiate for an easier life, and I would not wish to inflict conflict upon others. However, I also stand for a sharpening of "truth" and pushing the Queen envelope forwards - so if that means treading on Mr B's work - so be it. (Even if it means trampling all over my own previous work - so be it). I just do not want such a move to be misconstrued as another dart - in a supposed fued - which does not exist, as to be honest, I can't be ars*d with all that hassle again. Nevertheless, if it came down to a choice of being either diplomatic, or being part of an amateur Queen think tank... hey Ben, move over, you are sitting in MY chair!!! ;-) |
| Mr. Scully 12.07.2005 07:34 |
Benn, thanks for your posts but I'm definitely NOT willing to fight against Greg in any way. As I said, this is not a public competition or a revenge or anything like that. It's supposed to be an alternative to Greg's book - an alternative that will be (or already is) far superior to the book. I don't feel that Greg is abusing my (or anybody else's) work in a big way (although I do know that he does that to a certain extent). John, I highly respect your knowledge but I often get a feeling that you do have something personal against Greg ;-) You're very intelligent and you have quite a big ability to manipulate with people... that can be dangerous :-) |
| Sebastian 12.07.2005 07:41 |
... |
| John S Stuart 12.07.2005 08:06 |
Mr Scully: John, I highly respect your knowledge but I often get a feeling that you do have something personal against Greg ;-) You're very intelligent and you have quite a big ability to manipulate with people... that can be dangerous :-) Martin - Can I say from the start that my respect for you is mutual, and I thank you for thinking that I am an intelligent person. But I am also a very open person. It is true that I have had disagreements with GB, but I have also had disagreements with (amongst others) Sir GH, Sebastian, and even your own good self, but NONE of this has ever been personal, and after the heat of discussion and arguing my own corner, I have been able to look back and think “I disagree”, but it has never been more than that. It is also true that I like to poke fun of GB, as in “the official Queen archivists says…” but again this is not personal and meant in the same sense as “according the official Queen International Fan Club…” both are a stab at “officialdom” and no one would read the latter as a personal slur against Jackie Gunn. However, apart from corrections in Queen sites, I have never really attacked him as a person, or abused his name. I would do him no harm, and I wish him well, but I do not think he deserves an easy ride – as respect is earned, not a right, and unfortunately, you are correct to suggest that I do not respect him. But please let’s get this into some sort of context, and proportion. For all the bad blood between us, I hold nothing personal against the man, and I have no hidden agenda. I have been as open and transparent as I can, but, if people still wish to believe otherwise, then there is no more I can do to convince them. |
| Benn 12.07.2005 08:34 |
JSS, re: > However, apart from corrections in Queen sites, I have never really attacked him as a person, or abused his name. I would do him no harm, and I wish him well, but I do not think he deserves an easy ride – as respect is earned, not a right, and unfortunately, you are correct to suggest that I do not respect him. This, I think is the nub of the matter. Wheer conversations happen around the written word, it's VERY easy to get the wrong end of the stick to to read inference / emphasis into something that is absolutely NOT meant to be there. I would have thought that GB would ENCOURAGE the active participation of people within the collecting community in order to enhance and improve the work that he is doing. I have no personal vendetta against GB, but I despise the fact that, as an OFFICIAL archivist, he is not doing "everything he possibly can" to ensure that OFFICIAL material is fatually correct when the inormation is within his grasp. I'm currently assisting one of the associate producers that is working with Murray Lerner on a new film project about The Who - they (Lerner and The Who) have actively sought the involvement of knowledgeable people to nsure that the project is carried out to the best of their ability and remains both faithful to the band and to the people that have loved the band for so many years. Queen appear to not want this to happen and all it takes is a short e-mail or phone call to make it happen - there are no excuses. Martin, re: > Benn, thanks for your posts but I'm definitely NOT willing to fight against Greg in any way. As I said, this is not a public competition or a revenge or anything like that. I'm not suggesting at all that you are or that you should - your whole attitude to this is exceptional in my opinion. BUT, the fact that your website is there for all to see alongside GB's book, by extension makes it public competition. Were we to carry out a poll amongst Queen fans as to what THEIR primary source of information is for Live Queen information, I would be willing to bet that 90% at least would say your web site as opposed to GB's book. > It's supposed to be an alternative to Greg's book - an alternative that will be (or already is) far superior to the book. I don't feel that Greg is abusing my (or anybody else's) work in a big way (although I do know that he does that to a certain extent). I can't see how you can feel so relaxed about someone else gaining credit for the exceptional hard work and commitment you have put into your site over the years; GB has now produced two versions of this book that are both factually incorrect and has the temerity to charge £15 for the privellage. Your site is there for everyione to use for free and is pretty much as factually correct as it's possible to be and more. Within that £15 GB has information that he has taken from you and given you no credit for. It's appauling. Your site IS the primary source for information - it is a better resource than what is available officially. |
| Benn 12.07.2005 08:45 |
Sebastian, re: > I doubt it. I don't know him, but the few things I've seen make me think that if he's knocked down that way, that certainly wouldn't prompt him to improve his "service", instead he would just tell people to fuck off and would go and rest. I would imagine that QPL have him signed to some kind of non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from saying anything to anyone about the archive. The Q&A sessions he has carried out at various conventions over the years have probably seen GB have to run EVERYTHING by someone within QPL before he can actually say or play anything because of the NDA. > We, or at least me, would have happily done it for free. Still they managed to get some help (not from me), but not enough. Of course that's not related to QP, that's just something different. You see, this is the problem. Official channels appear to be embarassed that people outside of "the organisation" have more *correct* knowledge. That's fine, but what's worse is the fact that they appear to be scared to ask. Remember that the BBC can only have made the programme with the official say so of QPL..... > If I were they manager, I wouldn't recommend a box set release. For any band except Beatles, it's not a very good idea. Why not? It re-ignited interest in The Who in '94. FM's solo collection wa of huge interest and it received great publicity and reviews. Queen are a big name worldwide because of the Live Aid appearance - any archive release will ignite interest in the band's history for new and old fans. |
| Lester Burnham 12.07.2005 10:48 |
I've actually been working on my own book project over the past few years. For those of you who are aware of the excellent, indispensable David Bowie book, "The Complete David Bowie", it is essentially an encyclopedia of information about songs, albums, tours, movies - virtually anything related to Bowie. It has an alphabetical listing of every song, released or unreleased, that he's ever done as long as a description augmented by quotes, while the album section more or less chronicles the genesis of that album from inception to release, as well as providing contemporary press and band quotes regarding the album. That's really only the tip of the iceberg - there is so much information provided in that book that it would be impossible to put it all online. Similiarly, I have started work on a project like that related to Queen, which I started way back in 2001. I had a fair amount of research collected, but, due to an unfortunate hard drive crash back in September 2004, most of it was lost, so I had to start from scratch. I did manage to get a fair amount finished before I decided to email Brian and ask him what his thoughts on such a venture were. He replied, saying it was a wonderful idea but that I should get in touch with Greg Brooks. So, I emailed him in December 2004, and he thought it was a good idea but that he, too, was working on a similar project. He asked me to send some sample files; when I did, I didn't hear back from him until about January 2005. I asked him what his thoughts were, and he replied that he was busy but he liked what he saw. He suggested we meet up, but, so far, this has not happened. I get the feeling that he might have used some of my information for his own project. I was initially deterred to not complete the project, as Greg already had something in the pipeline, and he is the "official" source, so how would mine be any better? Then I started to think, and with the inspiration of such posters on here as Sir GH, Mr. Scully, John S Stuart, Benn, Sebastian, and about twelve thousand others I can't even remember - basically, the die-hard fans - I started the project up again, because, with their information, a decent publication can be put out. I don't claim to know everything about Queen, but, I am a die-hard fan, and I have amassed so much information over the years, yet I'm still able to remain objective and unbiased toward their work. I'm not afraid to criticize, because Queen were not, and are still not, infallible. But I want every Queen fan to have the information that I have access to, and would prefer that something definitive finally be put out for all to see. Is it really too much to ask for? I suppose it's one of those "If no one else will do it..." situations, and I don't see anyone from Queen Productions, who has access to so much good stuff that every fan wants to hear, stepping up to the plate. I've been working hard on this project for a while, and "no one's gonna stop me now". I want this to come out, but I can honestly say that I trust anyone on this board more than I would ever trust what Greg Brooks says. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 12.07.2005 11:23 |
Djaef wrote that "you guys represent the passion. Queen's music awoke and inspired so much passion in my life, and over the years we saw the quality falling away and rampant commercialism taking over. That degrades the brand. I applaud the recent live efforts, but my passion remains with the music of the past." Absolutely!!! I think that Brian and Roger are all about sales records, whereas they were about music before. And Djaef, I'm so happy that you mentioned how commercialism "degrades the band." It does, and it's not Brian or Roger who will write the legacy of Queen, it will be others. And history will not be kind to the post-Freddie Mercury period. For one example, the original WWRY is the definitive masterwork. It's iconic, and will be part of the world as long as sports is around. Brian can rationalize all he wants, but the versions with 5ive, the Hall of Fame, John Farnham and for the Pepsi commercial all devalue the original. Same with WATC with Robie Williams. Honestly, other than the fact that they'd get press and a boost on catalogue sales, what would they do that for? It paled in comparison to the original, and putting the Queen name on it cheapens it. Brian can say "it's only music", but that's his opinion and right as its creator. I think the early Queen catalogue is art. I wouldn't want Da Vinci to repaint the Mona Lisa 3 or 4 times with the hot painter of the day, and that's what's happening with these bad choices. BTW, Sebastian, I meant to imply that 80s Queen, not including Innuendo which I agree is an album in the spirit of their earlier work, was all about singles. Good on all of you for your efforts. |
| wstüssyb 12.07.2005 11:55 |
In my few short emails with Greg I found him not to be not the brightest mind on the block, that fact that he needs to "Look" up stuff when most people ( well the die hards) can recall most set-list and Live facts without having to spend a few days looking up the info...sadly seeing how he was I kept what I knew to myself. In just some way (IMO) he just does not appear as trustworthy as one could be. |
| Lester Burnham 12.07.2005 12:08 |
I sent him an email asking him about the "Another Miracle" project and why it was cancelled, and what extra tracks were going to be put on there, and he responded with "THANKS, ALL THE BEST". It confused me to no end. |
| HDvorak 12.07.2005 13:39 |
Christ, this is the best read I've ever had on this site! LOL! Although my musical PHD is in a few other bands, I'm heartened to know that rabid Queen scholars are dedicated to finding out the truth. Also, thanks for helping me to not reach for my wallet the next time I visit a bookstore. |
| djaef 12.07.2005 23:12 |
Lester Burnham wrote: I've actually been working on my own book project over the past few years.Wow, go Lester!! Lester Burnham wrote: ..there is so much information provided in that book that it would be impossible to put it all online.Sorry? Why's that? The internet does not have a content limitation :) I would think myself that a huge book on Queen done in a similar style to the Bowie one would be better anyway as a book, but you could always (mad if you didn't) have an online companion. Lester Burnham wrote: I suppose it's one of those "If no one else will do it..." situations, and I don't see anyone from Queen Productions, who has access to so much good stuff that every fan wants to hear, stepping up to the plate. I've been working hard on this project for a while, and "no one's gonna stop me now". I want this to come out, but I can honestly say that I trust anyone on this board more than I would ever trust what Greg Brooks says.I think it sounds like an awesome project Lester. Good luck with it. But can you do it all by yourself? What about a collaboration with another clever head? (There are many here) Two, or even 20, are always going to be better than one. As you say, it's strange that QP don't want to do something like this themselves. GB certainly has access to much information, but doesn't seem like the right man for the job. Anyway, good luck with it, and remember to put double redundancy into your backup procedures :)) |
| Lester Burnham 12.07.2005 23:47 |
Heh, thanks - I've actually saved and resaved on various Zip disks and CDs which are strategically placed around the room so that I always have a backup somewhere. Regarding the project and being posted online - I think it would benefit more if it was in paper format. I don't know why, but I really got a kick out of laying on the couch with my headphones on as I read about random Bowie songs while listening to "Low" or "Heathen" or "Hunky Dory". There's just a more... intimate feel if it's in a book than reading it on a computer screen. Call me old fashioned I guess, but that's just how I like it. A collaboration would not be the worst of ideas, but the project is really more of a collection of information from various sources. I don't think it would be too much for one to handle, but it would just take a while. For now, I'm really considering this project more of a personal hobby and collection for my own uses rather than a public thing; hopefully one day it does get published, but that might be way down the line. However, if anybody's willing to collaborate, or just offer some assistance, it would be very much appreciated. Who knows? I really do think this should see the light of day. |
| Maz 13.07.2005 03:28 |
I must admit, Lester, to thinking about this type of project myself, though I was never willing to commit the time to it like you apparently have. It certainly is a worth-while project, so more power to you. |
| Mr. Scully 13.07.2005 04:26 |
Collecting information is one thing. Coming with a suitable format is a different matter. It took me maybe 3 months to put all the info into a database (and I had to change the database structure several times since then). Doing any huge project without some kind of database is absolutely useless. You can't sort, do fulltext search etc. For example I still haven't decided how to store setlists - as plain text? As links to a table of songs? Etc. |
| John S Stuart 13.07.2005 05:30 |
So who has the time to help me make my own web-site? I still want to keep my allegence to Queenzone - but at the same time - it would be sort of an annex. Obviously, what ever would be over there - would be available over here too. |
| Fenderek 13.07.2005 06:35 |
John S Stuart wrote: So who has the time to help me make my own web-site?D'you need someone who makes a nice coffee...? ;) That's the skill I can offer I'm affraid... :) |
| wstüssyb 13.07.2005 07:04 |
JSS I wonder if Richard would make a special selection on QZ for you? that would make it related to QZ but in a way your own personal section, which indeed will have quite a few visitors due to the vast amount of people that come here. HTML is not so hard, Just takes a certain amount of time, which is why I don't have a web page anymore as I spend less time on the internet now. |
| Mr. Scully 13.07.2005 07:30 |
HTML is easy but that unfortunately makes people think creating good web sites is easy too... and we're flooded by thousands of totally useless ugly sites :-) 95% of Queen sites are crap (no offence). |
| Sebastian 13.07.2005 07:38 |
The other option you can use if you feel insecure about your web design ability, is for somebody else to arrange and sort the info in a classy website (or here), then you would supervise the content. |
| Deacons 1st Choice 13.07.2005 20:43 |
I think it would be wonderful if you had your own website John.... Talk about a brilliant idea!! |
| Ale_Pisa 13.07.2005 21:55 |
Hi everybody, I'm a collector from Italy, I collecting Queen since 1989, and I'm 27 years old. I want to say thank you to all the people (like Mr. Scully, JSS, Sir GH and many other) who do a VERY GOOD works for collecting Queen! Thank you again! Now, I think that the GB's Book is a commercial operation, stop! Nothing special! He do the book for money, at least the 2nd version, not for us, not for fan, not for passion! I've sent him many mail with some question about the number of video concert featured in the vault, the number of complete recordings, many many interesting (for my point of view) question but... nothing! he never answering! So my english is not good, but i think you can understand what I try to say! And when I read on the official queen site answer at question like this: What's an etched disc... what we can expect from him? a bible of Queen Concert? Don't spend money, go to QueenConcerts.com, buy a black cartridge, some a4 paper and print all the site! :) Or go to queenonstage.com and you can find many bootlegs or site like queentripod ecc.. I hope you understand something of what I write and I promises that when I've some time I study! :) Thank you again guys! |
| Fenderek 18.07.2005 09:47 |
OK- I just bought it... AND I'M DISSAPOINTED!!!! WTF? Not only he still says KYA was palyed at Golders Green- he still claims that they palyed hangman and Stone Cold Crazy. AND he is to lazy to actually re-write the text. He just basically left what was already written about that gig and added that by 2004 he found BBC transcription and bought it... For fuck's sake- where's the Hangman on it than Mr Archivist??? ok- THERE'S SOME NEW STUFF IN THE BOOK. but- WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? QUOTE- I have not always specified which song, adlib or particular Freddie/Brian audience address came from which show, because there is good reason to save that information for a bigger, better future (official) Queen live release... WHAT????????!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is pathetic. I dunno what it's all about- I dunno how exactly was he doing this update... They you have it- by Oxford New Theater he still claims the soundcheck is fake.. Did you hear this recording Mr Brooks???? There are few myths that don't exist anymnore. Spread Your Wings doesn't come from Bremmen, yet STILL in the text it's exactly as it was- under this gig. Instead of re-writing the wrong parts of the text, he "updated" them by inserting some new sentence and that very often contradicts the one before!!! Fuckin' hell!!! But p[lease, could someone expalin me what is it about "saving" some info for thefuture better release? This is more confusing than it was... It IS a lazy effort and it's just messy. If there's anything I'd expect from someone who's an ARCHIVIST that would be probably accuracy... And that's exactly what's missing... Lazy, lazy effort... |
| wstüssyb 18.07.2005 11:44 |
what he means by saving for a later date is that he is to lazy to fix or add it now. |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2005 13:27 |
Fenderek: WTF? Not only he still says KYA was palyed at Golders Green- he still claims that they palyed hangman and Stone Cold Crazy. AND he is to lazy to actually re-write the text. He just basically left what was already written about that gig and added that by 2004 he found BBC transcription and bought it... For fuck's sake- where's the Hangman on it than Mr Archivist??? Having NOT read the book, if what you say is true, then I am very, very angry. Although the BBC transcription disc of the Golder's Green gig has always been available, the full rock 'n roll medley has not. By the early 1980's the BBC had OFFICIALLY ERASED the master tapes - as part of their seek and destroy policy, and the master therefore did not exist. In the mid 1990's (c1995ish) - I was approached by a BBC engineer who claimed to have rescued the sole BBC master from a skip - at the time of destruction. At that time, I was not interested - as NO one knew about the full version. But, he perservered, and I bought this master for a fair sum. After buying it, I provided FREE digital copies to some Queen "personalities" - NOT the band. Infact, some of the traders on this board also KNOW for a FACT, I owned this tape long before "2004" when "...he found BBC transcription and bought it... " (It would also be nice for some of those guys to reply to this thread and confirm that this is indeed so). Since then, I have seen much of the stuff I have forwarded to QP not only leak, but now available for internet download. Cest La Vis. However, this latest insult to injury is a bit too hard to bear. GB did NOT discover that tape - I did, so not only is he too lazy too ammend any errors - he is now claiming credit for work he did not do. I think the words GB and trust do not mix. Ofcourse - his pat answer to me in the past has been that I did not own the ONLY master - but anyone with a modicum of knowledge or insight of the BBC at that time knows that this is a load of horsesh*t. |
| bigc 18.07.2005 14:14 |
Well I will ALWAYS hold the excellent work of you Queenzone archivists in higher esteem than Greg Brooks and his error laden material. Infact I may do a review on amazon.co.uk summarising the excellent points made in the posts on this thread. I know it potentially wont do much...but hopefully it may dissuade people from buying the book, why should GB get £££ for a shoddy book and leeching from other people. |
| Fenderek 18.07.2005 16:18 |
John- I'll give you EXACT quote tomorrow, don't have the book on me at the very moment... There is more. He still claims Spread Your Wings and Prophet's Song were played in Huston... At the end of the book there is a list of some bootlegs. At some point text says something about particular tracks on one CD (track 13), but... one thing is missing... tracklistings... In the main text there's few times line "highlighted songs were (whatever happenbed to them). Another problem- nothing is fuckin' highlighted... The line(s) are simply from old text... And there's really more. The only really (really!) great thing is Killers'79 European tour. But even there- the whole Mustapha thing... He claims it was played quite few times!!! WTF??? Can someone enlighten me? Man- mistakes like that are just pathetic in the book that is dealing with DETAILS! There's not that much text in it- almost half of it is DETAILS. If you are refering to non-existant listings or putting some well-known pieces of information simply WRONG- that's lame. Simply LAME. There's some good stuff in there, but... I'm disappointed and angry I guess... After all- Golders Green is known by virtually everybody. When Official Archivist still in 2005 claims they played Hangman there- there's something seriously wrong... |
| Benn 19.07.2005 09:53 |
Fenderek, I wouldn't waste your time mate - you're better off going to the QPL offices and trying to speak to someone face-to-face about all this. In my experience, QPL are noticeably faceless when it comes to having to "put things right" and they just have no interest in anything that appears on the web unless it's of their own design. Put it all in a detailed letter and find a way of getting it physically into the hands of someone and ensure that they read it. They just don't care. |
| Fenderek 19.07.2005 15:08 |
John- that's the exact quote- "(part from the old text about bad quality bootlegs from golders Green) NEW BIT- "Having said that, however, in 2004 I came across an original BBC transcription copy, in pristine condition, featuring the long forgotten (sic) Radio 1 announcer of the time, and snapped it up with all ahste" Benn- I guess you're right. Just one mistake, shhowing how did he UPDATED his book... June 19 1986, Lleiden- in the setlist we can see '39. WTF one may ask. But wait- there's an explenation- "(quote)Brian performs a short extract of 39 at this concert . Why? Because July 19 is his 39th birthday". So he played 39 on June 19th because his birthday is July 19th... Riiiight... But ahve a lookj at July 19th- Cologne. Now we know he palyed it there. Have a look at the setlist... Nothing... How can anybody trust ANY information in this book if you find mistakes like that? Maybe he copy/pasted those setlist wrong in more cases? Maybe he messed up half of them? Benn- is there a point writing any letter? On the other hand- is there a point of me writing about it here? Probably not... In both cases... I can't understand how few fans can be alright with that... I hope Bob's idea (project- whatever) will materialise with a help of those who really know something and CARE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROPERLY... |
| Benn 20.07.2005 05:13 |
What I think we all need to bear in mind is that anyone who devotes their "leisure time" to a band in the way that clearly people like Scully and JSS do has more of a vested interest in getting things right and correct that someone that is doing it all as a job of work. Let's face it, how many times do you go to work, make a mistake and not let it concern you too much? But how many times do you make a mistake at something outside of work and it annoys you 10 times as much? What you will possibly also find (and I know this from a bit of experience) is that working for people that are / were your heroes can be very disillusioning in terms of how you THINK things will be as opposed to the way things really are. You become nothing more than an employee, someone that the organisation uses for their benefit and the enjoyment and excitement quickli dissipates - it may well be that Greg is suffering from this but is far too prescious to ever admit it. Something that I can kind of understand, but would also go a long way to giving pweople "out here" a better understanding of what he may be up against. The value of a project, like the one that has been mooted here, is far greater BECAUSE of the amount of time, care and detail people would put into it because it is MEANT to be seen by other people that care deeply about how Queen is represented in the public domain. Greg's books only go to show a lack of care and attention to detail, something that he should really recognise publicly, but obviously never will. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 20.07.2005 09:06 |
Good point, Benn. Greg, however, is an employee. The problem lies with a management team that obviously doesn't care about quality control. I've stated before, I thought Queen's quality control during the Elektra years (US) was first rate in every area of their career. It slipped at Capitol, then became a joke at Hollywood. I mean if Queen were known for anything, it was their studio craftsmanship and attention to detail. To have Hollywood release the original batch of CDs with glitches and missing sections is inexcuseable. It's your music, how could you let a butchered product go out? You do if it's all about $. |
| Benn 20.07.2005 10:11 |
And, ultimately, as I have maintained for a number of years, the responsibility MUST lie with Brian, Roger and John. They are at fault for all of this. If they still have control over, say, the release of their historical recordings, then the Hollywood fiasco remains firmly at their feet. They have remedied taht to a certain extent with the mini-LP versions, but that at no little ADDITIONAL cost to their fans. The ideal scenario would have been for Queen to offer to take back the Hollywood albums in exchange for the mini-LP versions as a goodwill gesture, which The Who did with the initial batch of faulty versions of Face Dances (but interestingly didn't do again with the "fauly" versions of the poorly mastered A Quick One). However, THAT depends on what control they have actually signed over to other people. If someone has purchased control of that side of things, then there is nothing they can do, but again, they should accept responsibility for that publicly. At the end of the day, it's their art. Their creation. You'd like to think that, being as they showed such care and devotion to their art when it was new, that they would exercise that self same set of beliefs now that it's history. I'd bet a lot on the fact that if you ased Brian, Roger or John what their view was they would have no idea what you are talking about...... |
| doremi 08.08.2005 17:57 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: The new book still has hundreds of errors, both factual and grammatical. Greg refused to include most of my corrections, for whatever reason. 70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard. The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap. It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget. I respectfully declined. I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?I have been reading this entire thread for the 1st time and I would welcome your website, as well as I think it is a great idea. Not anything against Greg. Just putting correct information out there and another valuable information resource for Queen fans. |