QueenZone discussion #827854
GENUINE 'QUEEN LIVE' SERIOUS CHALLENGE FOR QZ-ers.
| Queen Archivist 17.07.2006 06:27 |
To all Queenzoners... On the subject of my book, Queen Live: A Concert Documentary. Many of you on this site seem obsessed by this book. You mention it at numerous opportunities, stating that it is full of errors. You moan about setlists and songs and what was said, or not, what is missing, and so on. And that is fair enough - but only up to a point. Beyond that it is unreasonable and unfair. So, let me say this... When i started to plan that book, in 1989/90, thereabouts, anyone else on this planet could have taken on the same thing. ANYONE HERE ON QZ 'could' have written a book on Queen Live. There was nothing stopping you, only laziness or the fear of failing. You COULD have done a similiat thing, there was nothing stopping you at all. BUT YOU DID NOT do that. NONE OF YOU had the courage to take that subject on... mostly because there so was so little out there on the subject. I wasn't working for Queen then, so it's not like I had a head-start on you or an easy way in, that you guys didn't have. None of you guys or gals (that complain endlessly about my attempt) ever got off your arses and wrote a book yourself. In the 10 years since the book emerged STILL none of you have got off your arses and wrote a book yourself. You STILL complain about my book, however, which is easy to do, but you haven't ever offerred an alternative. I researched that book BEFORE the internet existed, before the masses of data that's now available to us all, was available to us all. I only had setlists to work from, sent to me by FANS like you guys, from all around the world. You can see in my credits list who sent me those lists. A lot of the people who moan about my book - who just follow the words of other QZ-ers like sheep WERE NOT EVEN QUEEN FANS in 1989-90, much less experts. Some of the moaners (you can tell on their Profile) were not even born then!!!! These people just copy other moaners for the sake of it... because it's easy. With the internet now a big part of our lives, it would have been SIMPLE to do the book now, but 15 years ago it was a very different story. I explained this in my Introduction: how the work had to be compiled, and that I KNEW there were errors - unavoidable errors because no two lists I received then were ever the same. They always differed. Lots of you seem to think that today in 2006 ALL the setlists are now definitively known, but actually many STILL ARE NOT. Wherever I see a setlist published, like on the brilliant Queenconcerts site, there are usually people disputing a song or two, or an encore. There is never 100% agreement. Never. When I asked people 3 years ago to PUT UP OR SHUT UP, asked them to send me the setlists they knew are wrong... what did i receive? I received variations AGAIN. I did not receive 2 or 3 or 4 identical lists for the same show, therefore making it definitive. I wish I had. Even then there were discrepencies. I wrote back to people and said... "Look, I only have YOUR word for it, that this concert, or these 10 setlists are correct, but I need 1 or 2 other sources to say the same thing before it is confirmed." Then they got annoyed. I cannot just accept ONE source's word for it. I asked for 2 or 3 so that i could cross-reference and be confident and certain, but YOU guys out there could not do that. You seem to think that is so easy to get my book correct, and that I'm such a twat for having so many errors. So here is a challenge, a serious challenge, to see if you can actually do better... like you keep saying yo can. It would be very easy to put ALL THE SETLISTS I HAVE IN THE 1970's (which someone on QZ said "half of which are wrong") up here on QZ, and then YOU GUYS correct it. Now then. The first thing to happen will be all the morons stating, "Here goes Greg again getting US to do HIS work for him... lazy bastard." VERY PREDICTABLE. Second thing is... people will disagree with what some o |
| FriedChicken 17.07.2006 06:33 |
I've always enjoyed the Queen Live book, and I still do (although i'm not a big fan of them live anymore) I think you did a great job in a time where it was hard to communicate and find fans all over the world. OK.. it has some mistakes.. I really don't care. As you said, lots of people who went to concerts forgot 60% of the setlist. Another thing: When I was in Paris Roger played just a simple drum pattern on his kit during the soundcheck. When I looked at this forum the next day I saw some people here were very excited because "they" played One Vision in the soundcheck..... This is also how stuff gets confused. Again, I think you did a great job! |
| Jjeroen 17.07.2006 06:38 |
the_hero wrote: Lester_Burnham is busy writing a book about Queen in general I think.. but it will contain a lot of accurate information about concerts, setlist etc. can't you just look at / for once?Lester's book is about Queen's studio work! ;-) And indeed, Greg, have a look at queenconcerts.com. That's not the work of an individual. It's the collected work of several collectors an d experts over the years. In there is all the info that ALL these collectors and experts (THE collectors and experts) collectively have unearthed and are agreed with as to be the most accurate possible, to our knowledge, at this point. If you ask in here for setlists, they probably will all be identical to the ones on that website. |
| Queen Archivist 17.07.2006 06:48 |
To the-hero. I know about Queenconcerts.com I call it a brilliant site in my challenge, above, so very obviously I have visited it and read it. If you'd read it properly you might have offerred something usefiul instead of your usual ill-informed rubbish You are such afirst division TWAT. It is people precisely like you, a minority, that give the serious and intelligent QZ-ers a bad name. Read the above again and offer something useful about Queen Live. CAN YOU DO THAT? something of your own I mean? |
| Mr. Scully 17.07.2006 06:50 |
My QueenConcert site doesn't include one thing: the setlists (except for the gigs where a recording is in my collection). Simply because I thought it was senseless to write "guessed setlists" just like Thomas Zeidler or Greg did. My advantage over Greg is that QueenConcerts - despite the HUGE amount of time that I spend working on it - is a team work. Many mistakes were corrected by fans - while your book was corrected only by collectors who probably know if Killer Queen was played that particular night but they won't know that concert XY was rescheduled from Monday to Tuesday. My concertography is the most accurate one when it comes to dates. As for venues and cities, I've corrected heaps of them and there's still a lot of work to be done there. |
| MOANZONE TWAT 17.07.2006 07:00 |
the_hero wrote: Can you offer anything at all to people who wait for answers for 2 days and see that you just ignore them and go own with your own selfish topics? If so, I'll be able to add something to your first post. You're really pissing me off right now btw. Calling me a twat while you can't make one serious comment to fans who have questions about information which for now only you can answer. name calling won't get you anywhere Greg.My point exactly! Greg why don't you answer some fucking questions that US fans want to know? If you are the Archivist then you should know and have no problem answering them! I asked you a serious question and you didn't respond, but you start another boring and a stupid trivia un-creative thread. Instead of running away from your fears of being retarded, why not prove us wrong and chill out and answer the damn questions? You act like you coming here is like the second coming of Jesus or something, like you are checking in... fuck that Greg, you are just like anyone else here, not better, not worse, but the same, so quit acting like you are the MAN! Because unless you are Brian, Roger, or John, don't think you are gonna impress us or intimidate us. You aren't shit to me... I do respect that you are a small part of Queen in a way, but that's as far as it goes. You need to quit avoiding questions and the facts, you talk about others NOT PUTTING UP!!!! PUT UP BITCH! |
| Queen Archivist 17.07.2006 07:43 |
To the-hero... ***** Can you offer anything at all to people who wait for answers for 2 days and see that you just ignore them and go own with your own selfish topics? NO, NOT IF THEY PUT IT IN AN AGGRESSIVE TAKING THE PISS WAY, AS USUAL. WHY SHOULD I BOTHER FOR PEOPLE LIKE THAT? You're really pissing me off right now btw. AND YOUR COMMENTS PISS ME OFF TOO. I THINK YOU SEE MY POINT SOMETIMES (NOT ALL TIMES) BUT STILL YOU HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING PROVOCATIVE RATHER THAN TO SAY, "YES, OK. FAIR ENOUGH GREG, YOU MAKE A VALID POINT, BUT HERE IS WHERE I DISAGREE...." YOU NEVER DO THAT 'HERO', YOU ARE NOT FAIR OR BALANCED, YOU ARE PREJUDICED ABOUT ME, AND IT SHOWS. YOU PISS ME OFF TOO. DID THAT EVER OCCUR TO YOU? Calling me a twat while you can't make one serious comment to fans who have questions about information which for now only you can answer. IF THEY ARE SERIOUS IT ALWAYS WITH A PISS TAKING EDGE. I MAKE SEVERAL VERY SERIOUS POINTS ON THIS SITE (OK WITH AN EQUAL MEASURE OF SARCASM TOO, BECAUSE I GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET), BUT EVEN WHEN I DO OFFER SERIOUS COMMENT (SEE MY LATEST THREADS; ABOUT MY QUEEN LIVE BOOK FOR EXAMPLE) AND SEE YOURSELF WHAT KINDS OF COMMENTS I GET BACK. SERIOUSLY, HERO (I DON'T KNOW YOUR REAL NAME!!!) LOOK AT THE STANDARD AND QUALITY OF WHAT I GET BACK WHEN I OFFER A SERIOUS POINT. WOULD THAT MAKE YOU TREAT PEOPLE'S COMMENTS TOTALLY RESPECTFULLY????????? BE FAIR WITH ME FOR A CHANGE MR HERO. name calling won't get you anywhere Greg. IT'S NOT NAME CALLING. DON'T BE SO CHILDISH. I HAVE AN OPINION AND I EXPRESS THAT OPINION. SOME OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE STATED TO ME, OR ABOUT ME, ARE NOT CORRECT AND MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A TWAT IN MY OPINION - TO WHICH I AM ENTITLED... AS ARE YOU. OTHERS WILL DETERMINE IF I AM CORRECT, OR IF I AM WRONG. AND IF YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG. NAME CALLING HAPPENS IN THE SCHOOL PLAYGROUND. MOANZONE IS SCARILY CLOSE TO BEING THAT TOO OFTEN, YES, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE NAME CALLING. I'M EXPRESSING FRANKLY HOW I FEEL - JUST LIKE YOU DO. GB |
| Jay Mantis 17.07.2006 07:44 |
Queen Archivist wrote: To the-hero. I know about Queenconcerts.com I call it a brilliant site in my challenge, above, so very obviously I have visited it and read it. If you'd read it properly you might have offerred something usefiul instead of your usual ill-informed rubbish You are such afirst division TWAT. It is people precisely like you, a minority, that give the serious and intelligent QZ-ers a bad name. Read the above again and offer something useful about Queen Live. CAN YOU DO THAT? something of your own I mean?Way to go Greg, you just keep on insulting everyone here mate... I'm sure that will get you respect. What's your next move? Telling Richard that he should ban members of QZ becuase you think they are ignorant perhaps? A lot of people are already starting to hate you for this and you just pretend there's nothing wrong. Believe it or not, I've actually believed for a long time that you would come to your senses and would give us the pleasure of discussing and sharing information with us and maybe actually start building friendships here on QueenZone. But I see now that it probably won't happen... ever. Because very soon their won't be anyone left here that will even talk to you, let alone respect you in any way. |
| Queen Archivist 17.07.2006 07:59 |
To YoungPratMan... Strat, i mean YOU WROTE: Greg why don't you answer some fucking questions that US fans want to know? You act like you coming here is like the second coming of Jesus or something, like you are checking in... fuck that Greg You aren't shit to me... You need to quit avoiding questions and the facts, you talk about others NOT PUTTING UP!!!! PUT UP BITCH! I DON'T REPLY TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AGRESSIVE CONFRONTATIONAL IMBECILE WITH A LIMITED VOCABULARY, WHO CALLS PEOPLE 'BITCH', LIKE ONLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU DO. I HAVE NO WISH TO CORRESPOND WITH A NASTY INDIVIDUAL LIKE YOU. YOU GET ANNOYED AND IRRITATED, LIKE I DO, LIKE WE ALL DO SOMETIMES, BUT ONLY YOU RESORT TO USING LANGUAGE LIKE 'BITCH' AND SO FORTH, WHICH IS SO TOTALLY DEGRADING. PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE THE REST OF US FLINCH IN DISGUST AT HOW YOU PHRASE THINGS. YOU'RE NOT INTELLIGENT OR SHARP OR WHITTY, YOU ARE JUST CRUDE AND NASTY AND, YOU INFORM US, AMERICAN TOO. I WONDER WHAT FELLOW AMERICAN QZ-ERS MAKE OF THE PICTURE YOU PAINT? YOU ALSO SAID... You aren't shit to me... BUT YOU MEAN THAT I 'AM' SHIT TO YOU. IT'S LIKE SAYING THAT YOU HAVEN'T GOT NO MONEY, WHEN YOU MEAN THAT YOU 'HAVE' GOT NO MONEY. THESE SUBTLE THINGS TELL US ALL THAT YOU ARE NOT ONLY A RAGING, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURED NASTY SOD, BUT ONE WITH A POOR GRASP OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TOO. 'BITCH' IS A HORRIBLE WORD, STRAT-MAN, AND YOU ARE A HORRIBLE PERSON, CLEARLY. FEW QZ-ERS WILL BACK YOU IN THAT LINE OF APPROACH. YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN AND CHILL, AND NOT BE SO NASTY. BE INTELLIGENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE... THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOUR PARTICULAR FORM OF ABUSE. WHICH PART OF THE U.S. ARE YOU FROM? GB |
| The Fairy King 17.07.2006 08:15 |
Gee Greg, what is up your ass? Why can't you just answer the questions. Why are u makin yourself so difficult? Why are you opening threads with the same rants? You're just pissing everyone off with your rudeness and above all losing everyones respect. I suggest you calm down, approach everyone with respect and if someone asks u a question, give him or her a normal answer. That can't be that hard. |
| john bodega 17.07.2006 09:06 |
Since when was 'twat' an insult? A vagina is a beautiful... beautiful thing. I believe Mr. Brooks has some repressed problems he's obviously not talking about. |
| Reading Princess 17.07.2006 09:17 |
GB. WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU DOING YOUR "ARCHIVE" WORK FOR. HERE'S A CHANCE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT. REPLY "YES PLEASE" IF YOU WANT MORE OF GB'S RUBBISH OR "NO, FUCK OFF YOU TIT" IF YOU DON'T. |
| Serry... 17.07.2006 11:18 |
YES, OK. FAIR ENOUGH MR BROOKS, YOU MAKE A VALID POINT. But I always thought people were complaining about the second edition of that book... (I've spent MY money on the book and I can't judge about that book?! It's like buying damaged CD in the market and when you want to return it they tell you "Burn your own CD, twat! Get out!") |
| bas asselbergs 17.07.2006 11:39 |
Hi Greg, i have checked all the sources i my not too small gathering of Queen-wannahaves here in my royal-room, but i haven't been able to find any different details from shows as mentioned in your book. The info you've written is the same as on my tapes, cd's, video's and bootlegs...even on the shows and things i recorded myself... I think you've done a great job. It might be a good idea to no longer waiste your time and energy to people who obviously do not want to be cooperative. I would start a thread in the queenonline.com and start writing the REAL interesting stuff down there for the fans that are worthy of receiving it. I would even concider a pay-for-new-facts-site! haha...i'm adamant that the people moaning against you now will be the first to pay for this info... sorry that i couldn't catch you on a mistake yet, or add something more....makes the book ever so more brilliant! I too have heared fans saying that they KNOW for fact that some details are wrong...maybe they are...but i never ever saw any proof of their right or your wrong...only blablabla...and a zillion excuses why they can not give me the evidence of what they swear is the truth... I think it is a pitty that because of some people recording your demo's at meetings etc. and releasing them worldwide you no longer are allowed to make us listen to more of this brilliant material from the past. The ones ruining what they blame you for now (->not giving away any new info of newly discovered tracks), really brought that upon themselves...And i think it is such a pitty, and so Queen-spirit unworthy what is happening here now. All this anger, fan-jealousy towards you because of the privileged position you are in, this very negative energy, this bad vibe, it feels like the Israelian-Palestinian case to me...when there is someone killed, the counterstrike will come, and that will be revenged, and so it just keeps on going and going...without peace ever coming...you don't fight for peace...you just stop fighting and you have peace! If all Qz-ers would just care enough to stop this digital QZ mini-war from escalating, then we better just be silent, and enjoy the music again...then maybe soon enough, some sense might return again at this beautiful zone? Ofcourse , my remarks are now going to be translated (most likely to happen) as sweet-talking and sliming to you Greg, but as far as i'm concerned, it is the ONLY normal reaction in this thread so far. If you are disgusted by some folks here, then ( quote Freddie:) "you just leave them behind, like one leaves excreta behind...." and if the QZ-ers would listen to the many wise words and life-lessons in the songs of our heroes, then they would discover that the opposit of what they're doing to you now, is what they should be doing when they would really understand 1 word of what Queen is all about... I appreciate you anyway, no matter what the rest here makes of it. I am really looking forward to the next listening session in Holland...if you still want to come after all this crap you have to read....Cheerzz mate !!! |
| Ready_Coddie 17.07.2006 12:00 |
GB First of all, I am a professional writer and I had lost a publishing because of copyright issues with Square enix. The reason for which was I am not involved with Square and I could not use their material. Similarly the Queen Zoners could not be the writers of such a book is only because even if they do write it its violating copyrights to publish it. However, YOU are the archivist... you can write books, can't you? And Should you so neccesarily know there were also other Queen books published before the internet came underway however their errors were comparitively less. And Since the Internet is your only medium of knowledge why do you brag on about being the Archivist, being near the tapes, etc. I mean... what good did that do upon seeing so many errors? Setlists of ALL Queen concerts in the 70's? We are not hired by Queen so we have things to do other than researching so deep unlike you we wont get paid for doing work. However, since you are the writer... you are bound to recieve complaints you cant tell every reader 'if you dont like my book, write one yourself' I mean thats where a reader and writer's difference fades. People of QZ, Please do not take his boasts seriously henceforth... the fact that he can do so little with so much information states that correct/elaborate information is NOT EVEN GIVEN to him to begin with. (Its true or else he would have blurted it out with pride!) We all have friends circles and there are a few losers in them who are such retards and all but we dont throw them off because we fear they might cry, look bad in front of women, etc. Similarly GB is a loser in the QP group. |
| liam 17.07.2006 12:01 |
to greg I am a 17 year old queen fan from australia and i recently purchased your book. I found it very informative and above all interesting. I have always wanted a book like this for Queen and I am grateful i found it, so thankyou for putting in the obvious amount hard work into it and making it the great publication for queen fans it is. liam |
| john bodega 17.07.2006 12:09 |
Indeed, the noble Serry made a point. People give up their money and their trust when they buy books, music, novelty condoms etc. You accept money for these things - it therefore becomes your responsibility to make the best product you can; and it's also your fault if people aren't happy with it. Indeed, most of us haven't written a book about Queen Live. Fair crack of the whip. But - what the fuck does that matter? Does it make an existing book any better, just because others haven't been written yet? Yours is a most shoddy defense Mr. Brooks. It says a lot about "Queen" if they're willing to let *you* be the person who does most of the official yapping on this forum. |
| deleted user 17.07.2006 12:32 |
property of Queen Productions! :/ |
| brENsKi 17.07.2006 12:44 |
can i just add taht your "before the internet existed" comment is another wholly innacurate statement.....you said you started the book in 89...i had an internet account in the UK in 87....also....other parts of the world had internet accounts before us...but hey, nevermind...it's not like you make so many mistakes that anyone will notice.... and the whole tone of your original post...along with many other nEW THREADS you have started in recent months in very conforntational...don't sling mud/throw stones/or kettle calling...before your own house is in order |
| Queen Archivist 17.07.2006 12:55 |
To Liam... Thank you. Your words are much apppreciated. GB ******* to greg I am a 17 year old queen fan from australia and i recently purchased your book. I found it very informative and above all interesting. I have always wanted a book like this for Queen and I am grateful i found it, so thankyou for putting in the obvious amount hard work into it and making it the great publication for queen fans it is. liam |
| Queen Archivist 17.07.2006 13:06 |
To Zebonka. ARE YOU going to do exactly what I suggest in my Challenge?? ARE YOU going to prove how little you know, or how much?? Are you, Zebonka??? No, of course not. You don't know enough to disprove me, or confirm me. You just MOAN and TALK a lot. Don't dodge the issue. GET TO WORK, do as I suggest instead of complaining. YOU CAN'T, can you? NO-ONE HERE ON QUEENZONE HAS DONE ANYTHING AT ALL YET, AND IT IS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT PUT A LIST OF ALL THE QUEEN 1970's gigs ("half of which are wrong" according to you) BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOME OF IT WILL BE WRONG TOO. AND THEN YOU'LL BE EXPOSED. ALL YOU CAN DO IS COPY OTHERS WORK, PASTE IN DATA FROM ANOTHER SITE. YOU OFFER NOTHING ORIGINAL, NOTHING YOU RESEARCHED YOURSELF. SO STOP MOANING. YOU ARE SCARED OF BEING SHOWN TO BE WRONG. COME ON... READ MY CHALLENGE... ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BRAVE MOANZONE COMPLAINERS, AND PROVE ME WRONG. I CANNOT BELIEVE IT: 2 PAGES ALREADY AND STILL NOT ONE OF YOU HAS DONE 1 THING TO DISPROVE ME. ALL YOU'VE DONE IS COMPLAIN...... AGAIN TRUE TO FORM, YOU LOAD OF GRUMBLING OLD WOMEN, WITHOUT ACTION. WHERE ARE THE 'CORRECT' LISTINGS FOR THE 1970'S GIGS THEN? WHICH OF YOU WILL BE OFFERING THEM? HOW BOUT YOU ZEBONKA? OR YOUNGS-SPRAT-MAN, OR TODD, OR THE-HERO, OR READIE-CODDIE????? ANY OF YOU... DO SOMETHING. DO EVEN ONE OF THINGS IN MY CHALLENGE. ALL MOUTH AND NO ACTION. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 17.07.2006 13:10 |
I GUESS GREG MUST BE ON HOLIDAY THIS WEEK! LET'S ALL SCREAM AND SHOUT LIKE GREG! IT GETS MUCH MORE ATTENTION THAT WAY AND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE REALLY REALLY SERIOUS! |
| Micrówave 17.07.2006 13:11 |
I'm thinking about writing a book of childish insults and useless banter called GREG BROOKISMS... but I seemed to have misplaced my Crayolas.
or maybe another title:
Queen Archivist wrote: ALL MOUTH AND NO ACTION.But that sounds like something in my video collection. |
| john bodega 17.07.2006 13:40 |
Mr. Brooks (if you'd prefer I call you that)... I don't believe I criticised your book. You have absolutely no cause to be so friggin' uppity with me! I was being reasonable, absolutely reasonable. People who give you money for writing a book put you in the position you're in. It is their right to criticise your work - it's your right to either ignore them, or do better next time. Heck, it's your right to act like an idiot on the internet too, but you're above that obviously. I tell you this - you give me the information (hyuk hyuk) and I'll write the book because I'm a frigging excellent writer when the mood takes me. For the moment, can you please quit being such a dufus? It's unbecoming of someone who wrote such a fantastic book. |
| Penetration_Guru 17.07.2006 13:51 |
Oh dear. Here's a no-win situation. Greg's original post was almost entirely fair - it's all well and good to allege that something is wrong, it's much harder to prove what the correct information is, especially if one continues to employ the (perfectly reasonable) restriction that anything alleged must be corroborated. That said, *most* of the criticism of the book that I recall seeing related to the second edition, which many people not yet fortunate enough to inspect the archive assume would be almost pinpoint in it's archive given Greg's change in access since writing the first book. Also, most of the specific "errors" I recall seeing related to concerts that are in the public domain, which really brings me to my contribution to what we could laughably call a discussion... "does a recording of the concert count as corroboration of songs played, and, assuming that there are not multiple fade-outs, even the sequence in which they were played?" |
| gem27 17.07.2006 14:24 |
To Greg, i bought Queen Live book quite a while ago, maybe 1998 or 1999. i thought it was really good and very informative and no i could not do any better. Maybe it isn't 100% accurate but i see what a hard task it is to try to compile. Don't like the picture on the cover though! got to be better than that out there hey! i liked your book anyway. |
| PieterMC 17.07.2006 14:30 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Oh dear. Here's a no-win situation. Greg's original post was almost entirely fair - it's all well and good to allege that something is wrong, it's much harder to prove what the correct information is, especially if one continues to employ the (perfectly reasonable) restriction that anything alleged must be corroborated. That said, *most* of the criticism of the book that I recall seeing related to the second edition, which many people not yet fortunate enough to inspect the archive assume would be almost pinpoint in it's archive given Greg's change in access since writing the first book. Also, most of the specific "errors" I recall seeing related to concerts that are in the public domain, which really brings me to my contribution to what we could laughably call a discussion... "does a recording of the concert count as corroboration of songs played, and, assuming that there are not multiple fade-outs, even the sequence in which they were played?"One of the most sensible posts throughout this entire thing.... |
| bitesthedust 17.07.2006 15:05 |
Queen Archivist wrote: To the-hero. I know about Queenconcerts.com I call it a brilliant site in my challenge, above, so very obviously I have visited it and read it. If you'd read it properly you might have offerred something usefiul instead of your usual ill-informed rubbish You are such afirst division TWAT. It is people precisely like you, a minority, that give the serious and intelligent QZ-ers a bad name. Read the above again and offer something useful about Queen Live. CAN YOU DO THAT? something of your own I mean?Mr Queen Archivist, With regards to Queen Concerts.com - it's a pity that you didn't use that to correct certain setlists in the re-release of your Queen Live book...like Golders Green 1973. For those concerts that are extremely rare (e.g. Cambridge 1974) we rely on your information and therefore that cannot be disproven. My point is that for those shows that we fans do know about, like Golders Green it is a pity that that information was not displayed correctly. |
| Mr. Scully 17.07.2006 15:17 |
The discussion would be better if certain people stopped using CAPS LOCK and writing extremely long posts. Seriously. And indeed - some setlists are so obvious and well known (HamOdeon 75 or Golders Green 73 for example) that it's weird that Queen Live got that wrong. |
| The Real Wizard 17.07.2006 16:24 |
Greg, This is a reasonable challenge, but it's impossible. The only true proof of a setlist for us is a recording. A printed setlist used by the band may not have been adhered to during the concert, so a recording is the one sure thing. Since there are about 300 bootlegs, that leaves about 400 concerts without a confirmed setlist - and most of those 400 are from 1980 and earlier. You have access to some soundboard recordings (like LA 77 and a lot of 1979 shows) that helped you out, but that stuff is unavailable people like myself. Brian once said they recorded every show from 75 or 76 onward, and the band would listen to the recording on the way back to the hotel in the limo. Do these recordings still exist, and do you have access to them? I'd love to help correct you, but you're not going to find better tracklistings than are currently available at queenconcerts.com. The only time they will be updated is when more bootlegs emerge. Until then, there will unfortunately be a ton of blanks from 1971-1980. |
| JFarnham 17.07.2006 17:20 |
I am not the biggest Queen fan, and do i say i know a massive amount about them, but what i see going on here is a respectable man that wrote a Live Documentary book (which i own and admire for quick reference) but ppl here won't give him a chance. But i do have to point out that GB is NOT a representative of Queen, but merely a small part of Queen history. But Greg, can you listen to me for a minute? You claim that people are being nasty sod's and TWAT'S? You have been calling people nasty names and trying to discredit them (from every post i have read of yours) and all i had to do was search your username, but as i was stating, why not quit the name calling if you don't want to be insulted also? I have said my words for both sides and i do respect you, as long as you show the same respect for me. So come on people, chill out? Greg, please be of good service here and answer serious questions that these hungry for knowledge Fans so indirely need information on? |
| dont try suicide 17.07.2006 18:14 |
greg offered a challenge to all of you people and no one excepted it. why? maybe because you know he's right and it's true that nobody will agree on whats wrong or right . don't you think if there was a website back in 89/90, that greg would have used it as a reference? does it not register with you guys that there wasn't a queenconcerts.com back in 1990? isn't that where all the people on here get their info anyway? you go to all these very extensive queen websites, read all the material, and claim you know more about queen then anyone else. way to go! greg, if i were you i would never post anything ever again on QZ. |
| JFarnham 17.07.2006 18:21 |
donttrysuicide wrote: greg offered a challenge to all of you people and no one excepted it. why? maybe because you know he's right and it's true that nobody will agree on whats wrong or right . don't you think if there was a website back in 89/90, that greg would have used it as a reference? does it not register with you guys that there wasn't a queenconcerts.com back in 1990? isn't that where all the people on here get their info anyway? you go to all these very extensive queen websites, read all the material, and claim you know more about queen then anyone else. way to go! greg, if i were you i would never post anything ever again on QZ.Hi there, you are very spunky, i like that. And you also bring up a very great and valid point. But i do have to disagree about the web in 89/90, as i have had the internet since around that time. There was intensive Queen and music resources on the old imfamous BBS back then, but no photos as we know the web now, the info was there, but not as the monstrousity as it is today. Actually i would love for Mr. Brooks to stay as long as he is a good service to this community. Good Day. |
| mickyparise 17.07.2006 19:46 |
donttrysuicide wrote: greg offered a challenge to all of you people and no one excepted it. why? maybe because you know he's right and it's true that nobody will agree on whats wrong or right . don't you think if there was a website back in 89/90, that greg would have used it as a reference? does it not register with you guys that there wasn't a queenconcerts.com back in 1990? isn't that where all the people on here get their info anyway? you go to all these very extensive queen websites, read all the material, and claim you know more about queen then anyone else. way to go! greg, if i were you i would never post anything ever again on QZ. donttrysuicide, U are so right, Greg offered a challenge and noone came to the plate! All they did was abuse him,and put him down, and I don't agree with his first post but he has a legit agrument, about helping him and noone did that! Some things I don't agree with u Greg, but others I do.... Good luck Micky |
| mickyparise 17.07.2006 19:53 |
Sir GH, did'nt really read all the way thur this post but u are sooo right...and thank you the_hero for pointing that out to me....... sorry 'bout the confusion but both of u are so right! always Micky |
| rocks. 17.07.2006 20:24 |
Guys, you really need to lay off of eachother, this seems so childish! I commend Greg for writing a book in a time of no internet, and I imagine it must have been damn hard work, lets see any of you write a book on anything purely through letters and research of your own accord. I am privilidged enough to have grown up in the age of the internet. Even if there are errors, with a tricky subject like concertography, theres bound to be. My god, I bet most of you who have been complaining baout this book havent even read it. I also want to thank Mr. Scully for his site, it's absolutly fantastic! I've spent hours combing through it, it really is awesome. |
| inu-liger 17.07.2006 21:03 |
Hi Greg! I've skipped two pages to add my bit for a possible updated "Queen Live" book in the future (if you were ever to do it), so forgive me if I don't know what's going on in this thread at this point. In Vancouver this year for their last show of the 2006 North American tour, before the show began, Queen rehearsed (FOR SURE, as I was there myself, but not exclusively:) parts or bits of "Radio Ga Ga", "A Little Bit Of Love", and "Red House" before the show (which I'd mistook to be a blues jam, as I had never heard RH before, until that show). I think they rehearsed other songs, but what I heard was what I heard when I actually WAS near the entrance(s). Note that they actually DIDN'T play "A Little Bit Of Love" at the show itself. I'm myself not sure why, but that doesn't stop me from potentially e-mailing Brian May myself (though the chances of getting a reply about that is kinda nil at this point). This is all I can offer from MY own experiences. Regards, Richard Guilbault (inu-liger) ED: I can also offer an interesting pre-concert story about something very interesting that happened at the venue in the morning of the concert, in which I was the only member of the audience to have seen what happened. Let me know if you're interested in that story. |
| rocks. 17.07.2006 21:10 |
Inu-Liger, I'M interested! :) Do share! |
| coops 18.07.2006 00:11 |
Though I am not particularly interested in Queen show dates, track listing etc, I can see how daunting a job it must be to put together and I applaud you for trying, and some of the points you make may have some validity, I don't know. But you do come across as a bit of a prat. I think you should make your points short and concise, and quit the ranting. Peolple may be moe inclined to help you if they like you. Just a thought. |
| vini3 18.07.2006 05:21 |
Oh srry this isn't kindergarden srry... |
| bas asselbergs 18.07.2006 06:51 |
well well....it seems that my post got the brains back to normal thinking / functioning and less over-heated. I'm happy to see this happen. I must say that if this continues to be the positive way of communicating with eachother in the future,we DO have a damn nice forum here on QZ. I will certainly enjoy reading these threads more now !! |
| Queen Archivist 18.07.2006 11:08 |
To Zebonka..... BTW... I WRITE IN CAPITALS SIMPLY SO IT'S EASIER TO READ AMONG THE LITTLE LOWER-CASE TO WHICH I'M REPLYING. NO OTHER REASON. OTHERWISE IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT I AM SAYING AS AGAINST WHAT THE OTHER PERSON SAID. JUST PRACTICALITIES, THAT'S ALL. SO, TO ANSWER MR ZEBONKA.... Mr. Brooks (if you'd prefer I call you that)... MR BROOKS, GREG, I DON'T MIND. I don't believe I criticised your book. You have absolutely no cause to be so friggin' uppity with me! OK. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT YOU HAVE CRITICISED ME IN VARIOUS OTHER WAYS SO I THINK YOU ARE SPLITTING HAIRS. I was being reasonable, absolutely reasonable. OK. I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT RATHER THAN REVIEW EVERY COMMENT YOU'VE EVER MADE RELATED TO ME OR MY WORK. People who give you money for writing a book put you in the position you're in. It is their right to criticise your work THAT IS QUITE CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY. I HONESTLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT SEE, MOST QZ-ERS THAT REPLY TO ME ARE ALREADY PRE-PROGRAMMED TO GO THE NEGATIVE, INSULTING ROUTE. YOU KNOW THIS ZEB, AND SO DO THEY. THEY CAN'T HELP IT. THEY DON'T THINK,"INTERESTING POINT GREG MAKES HERE, OR BAD POINT HE MAKES THERE, BUT THIS IS WHAT I THINK..." NO, INSTEAD THEIR PRE-CONDITIONING STEPS IN.. "I HATE THIS PRICK, WHAT CAN I PICK OUT OF HIS THREAD TO HONE IN ON. WHAT CAN I SAY TO MAKE MY QZ FRIENDS LAUGH, AND LIKE ME EVEN MORE?" IT IS ALWAYS SO TRANSPARENT. BORING IN THE EXTREME, TOO. IF IT WERE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT - LIKE THAT WHICH SCULLY OFFERED - THEN I'D HOLD MY HANDS UP. BUT WHEN THESE PEOPLE JUST INSULT FOR UNSULT SAKE, I GIVE BACK AS GOOD AS I GET. REMEMBER ZEB, THAT QZ STARTED ON ME FIRST. THEY INSULTED ME FROM THE VERY EARLIEST DAYS ON THIS SITE. LONG LONG BEFORE I OFFERED A SINGLE WORD. QZ SET THE SCENE, I DID NOT. I JUST FOLLOWED IN VERY NEGATIVE AND OFTEN NASTY FOOTSTEPS. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT ZEB. - it's your right to either ignore them, or do better next time. I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME. SERIOUSLY... YOU OR OTHERS ON QZ 'COULD' HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, APPARENTLY, BUT ACTUALLY YOU NEVER DID. NO-ONE EVER DID AN ALTERNATIVE - BETTER OR WORSE. IT'S EASY TO CRITICISE AND HARD TO GET OFF THE BUM AND WRITE A BOOK AND GET IT PUBLISHED. HOW MANY QZ-ERS HAVE DONE THAT???? 1 PERCENT, IS IT? OR LESS THAN THAT? DO YOU CONCEDE THIS POINT? MANY OF YOU MOAN ABOUT MY WORK,BUT OFFER NOTHING IN RETURN. I FIND THAT INCREDIBLE. AND LAZY AND HYPOCRITICAL. IT'S LIKE ME MOANING ON ABOUT TONY BLAIR, OR THE CULLING OF SEALS, OR THE STATE OF THE EARTH'S ECOLOGY - BUT DOING FUCK ALL ABOUT IT OTHER THAN MOAN... LIKE ASTERPRIK ALWAYS MOANS BUT DOES NOTHING CREATIVE OR USEFUL. PEOPLE LIKE THAT ARE NEITHER USE NOR ORNIMENT. YES I'M BLUNT, AND RUDE, BUT I'M HONEST. DO YOU SEE? Heck, it's your right to act like an idiot on the internet too, but you're above that obviously. I JUST GIVE OUT SIMILAR TO WHAT I GET - AND YES THAT CAN BE CHILDISH TOO. I FEEL 'ABOVE' CERTAIN TWATS ON THIS SITE, YES, FOR SURE. ABSOLUTELY. DON'T YOU THEN? BUT... THE THING IS I HONESTLY AND GENUINELY DO NOT CARE ABOUT HOW I'M PERCEIVED BY STRANGERS ON QZ (MANY OF THEM CLEARLY NASTY OR LOOPY OR BOTH, OR NEITHER OF THOSE BUT JUST NEGATIVE FOR THE SAKE OF IT). SO OFTEN PEOPLE SAY... THIS IS WHY I GET NO RESPECT ON QZ. I SAY IT AGAIN... I DON'T CARE ABOUT RESPECT ON THIS SITE. IT'S NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT THAT? NO. OF COURSE NOT. I CANNOT AFFORD TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH THINGS. IF I GENUINELY WORRIED ABOUT IF QZ RESPECT ME, IF THEY LIKE ME, LOVE ME, ETC, I'D NEVER SLEEP. ZEB... GENUINELY... I DO NOT CARE. THERE IS NO NEED TO CARE ABOUT THE OPINION OF MALICIOUS STRANGERS. YOU JUST HAVE TO STEER CLEAR. I THINK YOU ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CLEVER OR PROVOCATIVE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU LIKE IT IS. I tell you this - you give me the infor |
| Serry... 18.07.2006 11:36 |
Mr Brooks is not part of QP, Mr Brooks says on his own, it's his own opinion, he's self employe. Okay. But why if someone named Mr Brooks and his book in the rude way - ALL QZers should share the fault of that guy? Serry (you can put other names instead of Serry here) defended second edition of QL once, Serry said that he liked first edition of the book, Serry asked two questions in polite way and named Mr Brooks as Mr Brooks (not as twat, sod, moron etc.) and what Serry has got back? "Truth" about me and about my family even. Why? Because Serry's QZer. And Serry shares faults of all QZers perhaps... But Mr Brooks doesn't share faults of QP... Something wrong in this logic, IMHO (Serry did something for this community - I didn't write books, because of my English - I made my site as help to other Queen fans) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.07.2006 11:54 |
Hi Greg, for what's it worth, I'm not for or against you, I find the whole thread fascinating, but I believe you err when you say that "I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME." The fact that the internet wasn't a resource for you isn't an excuse for sloppy research and fact checking. As a writer, if I submitted something to a client that was as sloppily presented as the Queen Live book I'd be fired. And while you are correct that "NO-ONE EVER DID AN ALTERNATIVE - BETTER OR WORSE. IT'S EASY TO CRITICISE AND HARD TO GET OFF THE BUM AND WRITE A BOOK AND GET IT PUBLISHED. HOW MANY QZ-ERS HAVE DONE THAT???? 1 PERCENT, IS IT? OR LESS THAN THAT?", that's a weak rationalization for your errors. If Lester or Sir GH or Zebonka or one of your perceived enemies write a book and it's filled with errors, you can be damned sure that the QZ board will be all over them. And as far as getting help, you're being paid to do your work, the members of this board aren't Personally, I think that you're a bit of a lightning rod for the joke that QP have become. Queen the band used to be fanatical about quality control. Queen the brand wants to make money hand over fist by spewing out shit and thinking we should be grateful. You're to be applauded for your initiative in gettting the book done, and for your work with the band. But if you have a track record of errors and misstatement, and you come here spoiling for a fight, you know it's not going to be pretty. Not that you should give a rat's ass about my thoughts, but I think it's below you to use this forum to do anything but provide information. The high road is sometimes the good road. |
| Benn 18.07.2006 12:27 |
Boy Thomas Baker. Right on brother. The issue I have (and the only issue outside of the quality of the Queen Live book) is that when ever Greg is asked a sensible question that DOES warrant an answer, he NEVER answers, but is more than happy spending his time trading pathetic insults with people. Remember the Q&A section on the official Queen site? I submitted question after question to him (none of which related to the size of Freddie's cock or whether Brian and Roger were gay too as so many of the other questions there did) and didn't get a single answer. Surely, spending the time it takes to compose a 1000 word swear-a-thon at someone would be better spent answering a few valid questions? Likewise here. He continually fails to respond in a serious and lucid manner to people that have a genuine interest and desire for knowledge on the band whilst he purports to be all-things-to-all-men where the history of the band is concerned. If he is indeed employed by QPL, then it has to be questioned what the hell they are doing employing someone who publicly represents the company that backs a band who were once so proud of all of their fans and who were so open to criticism in a public fashion regardless of whether or not they agreed with it. Still, Greg's in his comfort zone having a pop at people here, which is kind of endearing bacause he's the kind of guy you can imagine in a group of people that, when they get a little bored, they turn their attention to him and start picking on him; and every time, he comes back for more - every time you smack him on the top of the head, he gets back up and laughs at himself and takes another smack on the head - and so it soes on....... |
| Queen Archivist 18.07.2006 12:32 |
To BOY THOMAS RAKER I'm going to address your thread because there are numerous valid things proffered in a reasonable way. Some QZ-erswill say that that's patronising (I can't win), but I hope you see the real intention BTB... Hi Greg, for what's it worth, I'm not for or against you, I find the whole thread fascinating, THAT IS AN ENCOURAGING START BTR. but I believe you err when you say that "I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME." The fact that the internet wasn't a resource for you isn't an excuse for sloppy research and fact checking. I DO NOT EXCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH. I GATHERED TOGETHER ALL THE LETTERS AND LISTS I HAD FROM FANS. HUNDREDS OF THEM FROM FANS WHO SAID THEY HAD THOSE RECORDINGS AND "THESE LISTS ARE DEFINITELY ACCURATE GREG". I WENT THROUGH ALL THE SETLISTS THAT EXISTED ANYWHERE AT THAT TIME. I MEAN EVERYWHERE. WHEREVER THERE WAS A QUEEN SETLIST OR FACT OR FIGURE, I USED IT. BUT... EVERYTHING CONFLICTED WITH SOMETHING ELSE. VERY RARELY DID TWO LISTS APPEAR EXACTLY THE SAME. I THINK ONLY 10 % WERE NOT IN CONFLICT. I TRIED CROSS REFERENCE EVERYTHING AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE IT MADE IT TO THE BOOK. BTR, I SIMPLY COULD NOT DO MORE THAN I DID. I SAT DOWN WITH JIM JENKINS, AND OTHERS, AND WE CHECKED EVERYTHING THAT WAS DOCUMENTED AT THAT TIME... 15 YEARS AGO. I DO NOT ACCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH. IT WASN'T. As a writer, if I submitted something to a client that was as sloppily presented as the Queen Live book I'd be fired. FAIR ENOUGH. WHEN THE BOOK EMERGED IN 1996, I HAD 18 LETTERS IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS. ONLY 18 LETTERS TO POINT OUT ERRORS, IN 2 YEARS. I WOULD ACCEPT THAT THE MULL OF KINTYRE THING WAS A VERY BAD AND OBVIOUS ERROR, BUT IN A BOOK OF 45,000 WORDS, THAT'S NOT A BAD VOLUME.... IS IT BTR? WHAT DO YOU THINK? I OFFERED INFO AT THE BACK OF THE BOOK NEVER TO BE COMPILED BEFORE. QZ NEVER POINTS THAT OUT. NO-ONE HAD EVER AMASSED ALL THAT INFO ON QUEEN LIVE INTO ONE PLACE AND OFFERED IT. QZ NEVER POINTS THAT OUT. MANY GOOD PEOPLE HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS SINCE - SINCE THE INFO'S BEEN EASILY ACCESSIBLE ON THE WEB. BUT NP-ONE HAD DONE IT UP TIL THEN. QZ NEVER POINTS THAT OUT. OMNIBUS PRESS HA OVER 700 COMPLIMENTARY LETTERS IN THE FIRST 5 YEARS THE BOOK WAS AVAILABLE. SOME SAID THAT IT HAD ERRORS BUT THAT THAT 99 PERCENT WAS USEFUL AND INTERESTING. And while you are correct that "NO-ONE EVER DID AN ALTERNATIVE - BETTER OR WORSE. IT'S EASY TO CRITICISE AND HARD TO GET OFF THE BUM AND WRITE A BOOK AND GET IT PUBLISHED. HOW MANY QZ-ERS HAVE DONE THAT???? 1 PERCENT, IS IT? OR LESS THAN THAT?", that's a weak rationalization for your errors. IT'S NOT WEAK. BOY THOMAS, I THINK I WOULD FEEL SHITTY TO KNOCK AND BETTER YOUR BOOK OR WORK, IF I WAS TOO LAZY TO HAVE OFFERRED ANYTHING MYSELF. I'D FEEL A HYPOCRIT. I WOULD. IT'S NOT A WEAK ARGUMENT. If Lester or Sir GH or Zebonka or one of your perceived enemies write a book and it's filled with errors, you can be damned sure that the QZ board will be all over them. QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE HATE-GREGSTERS SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT MY BOOK? NO. BUT WE BOTH KNOW THAT AMONG THE ERRORS THERE ARE GOOD THINGS TOO... BUT THEY IGNORE THAT. THEY ARE NOT FAIR OR BALANCED. SURELY YOU SEE THIS. And as far as getting help, you're being paid to do your work, the members of this board aren't. I DID NOT WORK FOR QUEEN THEN. I WAS NOT PAID TO DO THE BOOK. WITH RESPECT... THIS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW. NO-ONE ON QZ EVER ASKED ME THAT. THEY JUST ASSUME - THE WRONG THINGS MOSTLY. YOU MAYBE BEGIN TO SEE WHAT I AM UP AGAINST ON THIS SITE. BTR, AFTER THIS REPLY TO YOU GOES 'OUT THERE' ON QZ, YOU WILL SEE FEW BALANCED REPLIES. 98 % WILL B |
| Lester Burnham 18.07.2006 12:52 |
Greg, any chance of you responding to my email? |
| john bodega 18.07.2006 14:15 |
"BTW... I WRITE IN CAPITALS SIMPLY SO IT'S EASIER TO READ AMONG THE LITTLE LOWER-CASE TO WHICH I'M REPLYING. NO OTHER REASON. OTHERWISE IT'S HARD TO SEE WHAT I AM SAYING AS AGAINST WHAT THE OTHER PERSON SAID. JUST PRACTICALITIES, THAT'S ALL." Right on. I usually put ""'s over other people's writing because I don't like the 'quote' button. But whatever suits you best. "SO, TO ANSWER MR ZEBONKA.... MR BROOKS, GREG, I DON'T MIND." Fair enough. "OK. FAIR ENOUGH. BUT YOU HAVE CRITICISED ME IN VARIOUS OTHER WAYS SO I THINK YOU ARE SPLITTING HAIRS." True - I have lampooned the way in which you handle yourself. Quite frankly it just gets a bit confusing sometimes, and I think you could probably do things better (or at least, just ignore people). If we are to talk about the book, then - I won't heap shit on it because research (while fun and meditative to me) can be a bitch of a thing to do. "OK. I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT RATHER THAN REVIEW EVERY COMMENT YOU'VE EVER MADE RELATED TO ME OR MY WORK." Haha well - I meant solely in this thread. Truth is, I can't help but write jabs and stuff. It's not meant to be taken seriously. If you *were* to look at every other thing I've said, chances are you'd probably just come across sarcasm or hamfisted social commentary. "THAT IS QUITE CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY. I HONESTLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT SEE, MOST QZ-ERS THAT REPLY TO ME ARE ALREADY PRE-PROGRAMMED TO GO THE NEGATIVE, INSULTING ROUTE. YOU KNOW THIS ZEB, AND SO DO THEY. THEY CAN'T HELP IT." I understand this point... I actually think it's more indicative of people in general as opposed to QZ on it's own. I suppose it's different on other sites because they're moderated differently. "THEY DON'T THINK,"INTERESTING POINT GREG MAKES HERE, OR BAD POINT HE MAKES THERE, BUT THIS IS WHAT I THINK..." NO, INSTEAD THEIR PRE-CONDITIONING STEPS IN.. "I HATE THIS PRICK, WHAT CAN I PICK OUT OF HIS THREAD TO HONE IN ON. WHAT CAN I SAY TO MAKE MY QZ FRIENDS LAUGH, AND LIKE ME EVEN MORE?" There's a lot of that here. I'll readily admit I'm guilty of that. Can I point out though, if I write something like "that's 'property of Queen productions'", it really shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm just commenting that it sounded funny. "IF IT WERE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT - LIKE THAT WHICH SCULLY OFFERED - THEN I'D HOLD MY HANDS UP. BUT WHEN THESE PEOPLE JUST INSULT FOR UNSULT SAKE, I GIVE BACK AS GOOD AS I GET." Fair enough. "REMEMBER ZEB, THAT QZ STARTED ON ME FIRST. THEY INSULTED ME FROM THE VERY EARLIEST DAYS ON THIS SITE. LONG LONG BEFORE I OFFERED A SINGLE WORD." This I can't offer an opinion on because I only joined the site in 2004 so I could watch "Story of Bohemian Rhapsody". "QZ SET THE SCENE, I DID NOT. I JUST FOLLOWED IN VERY NEGATIVE AND OFTEN NASTY FOOTSTEPS. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT ZEB." Noted. "I DID A GOOD JOB IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT TIME." Agreed. Out of curiosity, would you consider amending such works; or would you approve of someone doing so in the far off future? "SERIOUSLY... YOU OR OTHERS ON QZ 'COULD' HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB, APPARENTLY, BUT ACTUALLY YOU NEVER DID." I WAS 5 YEARS OLD!! Haha, but really... when I claim to be a neat writer, I talk purely of literary quality. I don't know a tenth about Queen live that other people know - I just point out that I could make the writings interesting. "DO YOU CONCEDE THIS POINT?" I don't have to - it's simply how things are. "I JUST GIVE OUT SIMILAR TO WHAT I GET - AND YES THAT CAN BE CHILDISH TOO. I FEEL 'ABOVE' CERTAIN TWATS ON THIS SITE, YES, FOR SURE. ABSOLUTELY. DON'T YOU THEN?" I admire your sentiment, but - 'twats' are such beautiful things. If I were you I'd find a more appropriate curse-word because I honestly think vag |
| Roy ® 18.07.2006 14:51 |
Queen Archivist wrote: *edit* Queen the brand wants to make money hand over fist by spewing out shit and thinking we should be grateful. DO YOU THINK GREATEST HITS DVD 1 AND 2, LIVE AT MILTON KEYNES, THE GAME & NATO 5.1 MIXES ARE SHIT? I DON'T. OKAY IT'S NOT LIVE AT HAMMY ODEON 75, OT HYDE PARK, BUT THERE ARE PLANS FOR THOE THINGS. THEY ARE GOOD PRODUCTS. *edit*Greg, this is some nice information. Could you tell us something more about this "plans" maybe an '70s DVD box ;) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.07.2006 16:05 |
Hi again, Greg. since you seem to be a busy man here these days :D I won't reply to everything. As I said, I'm not hear to slam you, and since you were kind enough to reply, here are a few thoughts: Re: The setlist errors where you say "BTR, I SIMPLY COULD NOT DO MORE THAN I DID. I DO NOT ACCEPT IT WAS SLOPPY RESEARCH. IT WASN'T." Fair enough. Re: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE HATE-GREGSTERS SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT MY BOOK? NO. BUT WE BOTH KNOW THAT AMONG THE ERRORS THERE ARE GOOD THINGS TOO... BUT THEY IGNORE THAT. Again, true enough, but if a release is purported to be definitive, people will jump on the errors. RE: Getting help and being paid, I meant you got paid to do the book by your publisher, the members of this board didn't. Re: The responses to you and that "98% WILL BE SARCASTIC PISS TAKES." That's QZ. Personally, I think there are 15-20 serious posters here, give or take another 15-20. The rest are a joke and best ignored. Re: The joke that QP have become. "THEY SEEM TO INSTEAD VIEW IT AS "QUEEN PRODUCTIONS OWES QZ AND OTHER FANS ALL KINDS OF THINGS." Agreed. "THEY GET VERY OFFENDED BY QPL, BUT NOT BY MACDONALDS AND SAINSBURY'S AND TESCO, WHO RUN A VERY SIMILAR BUSINESS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT." No they don't run similar business at all. QPL are the guardians of one of the finest catalogues in music history. People here are passionate about Queen's music, and I regard the first 5 albums as art, with ANATO equivalent to a Picasso painting or Shakespeare play. The 30th anniversary release of ANATO was a joke with embarassing video, the Hollywood CD releases were butchered, with the intro to my favourite ever Queen song (It's Late) was snipped at the beginning, Roger Taylor said that the cover for 'Rocks' looked like someone threw up on it, and I could go on for another hour about the importance of having the lead song on every shitty compilation known to mankind while awaiting a decent retrospective. If QPL put more than a few days effort into the ANATO DVD release I'd be shocked. If you think that's good quality control, we'll agree to disagree. Re: If you have a track record of errors and misstatement, "OH DEAR! I DON'T HAVE THAT TRACK RECORD." I'm a big man and will admit when I'm wrong. I've seen a pretty comprehensive list of errors from numerous posters whom I respect (Lester, PG, Sir GH, YV, JSS, Sebastian, Mr. Scully etc.), if they were making stuff up because they have an axe to grind with you I apologize. RE: YOU MIGHT THINK I'M A DICKHEAD. I don't know you so I can't think that, I might meet you in person and that could convince me you are a dickhead, or you could be my new best friend. However, with a writing style when you say "NO. YOU ARE WRONG. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID", and "WITH RESPECT... THIS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW", people may think you're a dickhead. I don't pretend to know everything, and IF the errors attributed to you are indeed true, that would make two of us who have a little to learn. Thanks Greg. |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2006 17:11 |
Queen Archivist wrote: ...and you come here spoiling for a fight, I DON'T ACTUALLY. I REALLY DON'T. I JUST STICK UP FOR MYSELF WHEN I READ UNFOUNDED COMMENTS.Isn't irony delicious? Has John S. Stuart moved into the Queen Archive room and nobody told me? /queenzone/821653.html Sorry if there are children on Moanzone tonight, but I'm gonna spew again.. /queenzone/824988.html GENUINE 'QUEEN LIVE' SERIOUS CHALLENGE FOR QZ-ers. /queenzone/827854.html NEW BOOK ON QUEEN IN THE STUDIO /queenzone/827884.html Greg, for better or worse you are the Official face of the Queen archive, and to write the above under the guise of your authorized title, is both an insult and a slap in the face to us all, and is a blatant misuse of the authority and trust placed in you by the band and fans alike. Any one else would (correctly) be hammered as a spammer. |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2006 17:31 |
the_hero wrote: You forgot: What about MoanZone instead of Queenzone? /queenzone/826066.htmlI did indeed. In fact there has been so much spam in here of late, I think I am about to be all overcome by Monty Pythonism... |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2006 17:44 |
Forgive me for repeating myself, but, I am posting this everywhere the Official Queen Archivist can read it, to remind him of the promise he made to me on 11th July 2006 .
Now there is no excuse to say that he did not see it, or that he overlooked my mail.
Therefore, if you a man of your word, and can you please reply to the request below?
John S Stuart wrote: Therefore, I accept your very kind offer;/queenzone/821653.html Queen Archivist: "If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all, including the things he 'thinks' exist, and he puts it on the table, I will confirm or not that they exist or not. NO confusion, no guessing, no misleading misinformation. John, what do you REALLY know. What do you REALLY have to offer as fact?" As I have been so free with my version of events re: Queen II recording sessions, and I have placed all my knowledge "...on the table", I hope you can oblige and let me know EXACTLY where I have gone wrong. I really look forward to reading your informative reply, John S. Stuart |
| Reading Princess 18.07.2006 20:26 |
It really isn't funny when someone is suffering so maybe someone can guide GB to the help he needs, |
| The Real Wizard 18.07.2006 21:18 |
Queen Archivist wrote: QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.Greg, If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash. Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do. |
| Queen Archivist 18.07.2006 22:19 |
To JOHN S. STUART. John... what i wrote to you today (or last night) privately, instead of coming on here and letting my views of you be publicly scrutized, still stands. I would have prefered it to stay private, but your choice to bring it here is ok too. Typically you! I'm not going to repeat all that stuff, no need to, but since you clearly want reaction from me here, in front of your QZ chums, who matter so much to you (for dubious worrying reasons I've already outlined, yesterday), I will say some of those things for your audience... so we're all clear. I repeat myself now so that you will understand and know why I will not be corresponding with you further, after this - as I thought i'd already made clear, but obviously didn't. as i explained (politely and as nicely as I could, and without swearing... which is good for me)... i honestly and 100% genuinely DO find you to be one of the most TWO-FACED people I have ever encountered in 31 years of following Queen. In fact THE most two-faced person. You could get a part as a Dr Who monster, with those two heads. For our overseas QZ-ers, for whom the phrase 'two-faced' might not translate... I mean that John has told me one thing, privately, but expressed a different view on QZ, because you guys are watching. He says one thing to me, another to you. You can call it a crisis of popularity, or insecurity on his part, but I call it two-faced. John, you deny stuff on here, on QZ, that you KNOW we talked about, and you twist things deliberately. But you do so with a very cunning 'feel sorry for me' edge, which is both sickly sweet and loathesome. However, it works beautifully for you, because many QZ-ers (not all thankfully) cannot see further than the end of their nose, and they actually buy it - they believe you. I know others on QZ have said the same... I saw it last time I was here last year. This is no surprise, not least because they are already pre-programmed NOT to believe me, so that's half the battle won for you before you even begin to manipulate them and tell them subtle innaccuracies which we both know to be untrue. If QZ-ers were not so ANTI me, more of them would see thru you - but you are currently in their blind spot, and you know it. You ARE two-faced. You PLAY people John. You bend and twist and manipulate words and people, and I suspect I'm not the first in your life to tell you this. I further suspect that's partly why you spend SO MUCH time and words on this site. CAN ANYONE ON QUEENZONE TELL ME HOW MANY THREADS JOHN STUART HAS BEGUN, AND CONTRIBUTED TO OVER THE YEARS? I THINK THE ANSWER TO THIS WOULD STAGGER US BOTH JOHN. I BET IT IS SEVERAL HUNDRED, IF NOT MORE. RICHARD, IS THIS INFO GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE? NO NEED TO HIDE IT, RIGHT? WHY DOES A MAN LIKE YOU, JOHN, SPEND SO MANY HOURS PER WEEK ON A SITE, ATTEMPTING TO WIN FRIENDS AND IMPRESS AND DO ANYTHING IT TAKES NOT TO BE UNPOPULAR? I honestly do not want to continue dialogue with you John, so please stop trying to provoke a reaction with your various invitations to answer this or that tedious point here on QZ, or at my old email address. Respectfully i point out that you and I are unable to communicate without my blood pressure soaring to the giddying and dizzy heights that only your insecurities know. I have tried so many times, and exercised EXTREME patience in trying to get thru to you, but it is, honestly, impossible. You are inpenetrable. I'm not the first to say this either, but I feel that I want to grab you by the throat and squeeze a good deal harder than would be safe, each and every time I speak with you. That can't be good, can it? I cannot do it any more. Let's call it quits. That old thing about "It's too much like hard work", well, with you, it is agonisingly painful, excruciatingly nausiating, futile and pointless, trying to get sense out of you. It's not 'hard' work, it's RE-ENFORCED CONCRETE INPENETRABLE work... like drilling |
| Queen Archivist 18.07.2006 22:21 |
To the-hero, who wrote.... Sorry for not going on with this seriously... but the attempt you've tried to make a point just shows how genius you are... as how hard it is to communicate with Greg if you have to go that far. THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL MAN. WHAT THE BUGGERING HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT? |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2006 22:29 |
To the Queen Archivist: Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would, as you know, I am always open to friendly dialogue, if discussion is indeed open. But you still fail to address my one and only question, in fact, the only question I have ever 'really asked'. I think that may say much about both of us. Like a Cruise missile I keep focused, and keep asking... and I condede it is one of my more negative traits. Perhaps I am infuriating, and 'play my cards close to my chest', but surely that is the nature of the game? I am not a good poker player, but I do know from playground 'swapsies' that I do not just give you all my cards for no return. That makes no sense - does it? (Well it doesn't for me). But no-one can expect something for nothing, and as we both know since the Ibex fiasco, for me, goodwill and Queen no longer exist in the same sentence. Edit: This mail was edited after I wrote the first sentence. I did not expect a reply so soon. |
| inu-liger 18.07.2006 22:30 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:You have to keep in mind that, even if Greg NOW has access to the archive(d) tapes and such where he COULD potentially now use data from the tapes to have more correct info for current and future editions of the book, he would have to sit and (re-)listen to all the available soundboard/multitrack tapes from concerts that HAVE been recorded, in complete sittings each, and log what songs and bits were played in each concert.Queen Archivist wrote: QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.Greg, If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash. Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do. Now, I don't think he was given access to the archive just for the sole purpose of having a book out there about what's been done live and such... I believe he is there to review, listen to and log the tapes for future use in projects like the long promised and delayed rarities box set, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround sound discs (or now, potentially HD DVD-A or BR-A high def. DVD's), etc. etc.. ...all for QP and related people, who he again does NOT work for, but does as a freelance position (although potentially involving clauses or NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) that might and could very well be limiting what he CAN tell us about what songs and such are in the archive)) If he had been able to have archive access when he first wrote the book, that book would never have been as error-riddled as it was. Now, I admit I've never read the book myself, so I don't know what's listed as being incorrect, but from what I've been gathering from Greg's posts, he does the best he can with available information that IS given to him. I myself would hope that someday Greg would be able to provide us with a 2nd revision of the book (or a 3rd edition) with more info to fill in or replace the unavailable or questionable data/bits, by being able to use info from available tapes. But I can only dream about that, for now. PS. I've intentionally been holding out until now on expressing my views about these matters involving Greg, for fear of being flamed due to my supporting Greg for certain reasons. I myself respect Greg a lot, and am in constant contact with him. He really is a nice chap to talk to, when you give him a chance. We've actually had some interesting conversations, and he's not as stupid as you guys seem to make him out to be. |
| JFarnham 18.07.2006 22:31 |
the_hero wrote:My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you! I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know. I have asked genuine questions and so have other zoners, but you just sit on your fat fucking ass and eat pork chops and avoid it every time! So why not answer some questions and chill? Maybe then you might be liked, and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get.Queen Archivist wrote: THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL MAN. WHAT THE BUGGERING HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?We've been asking you the same thing for days now, and you expect me to answer? |
| Queen Archivist 18.07.2006 22:37 |
To John Stuart To the Queen Archivist: Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would. ********* I did not PROMISE you anything. GB |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2006 22:43 |
Queen Archivist wrote: To John Stuart To the Queen Archivist: Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would. ********* I did not PROMISE you anything. GBSorry, I edited my original reply while you were writing this. I would not like you to think that I was being deliberately misleading. To the Queen Archivist: Thank you for your reply, and for answering my questions like you promised you would, as you know, I am always open to friendly dialogue, if discussion is indeed open. But you still fail to address my one and only question, in fact, the only question I have ever 'really asked'. I think that may say much about both of us. Like a Cruise missile I keep focused, and keep asking... and I condede it is one of my more negative traits. Perhaps I am infuriating, and 'play my cards close to my chest', but surely that is the nature of the game? I am not a good poker player, but I do know from playground 'swapsies' that I do not just give you all my cards for no return. That makes no sense - does it? (Well it doesn't for me). But no-one can expect something for nothing, and as we both know since the Ibex fiasco, for me, goodwill and Queen no longer exist in the same sentence. Edit: This mail was edited after I wrote the first sentence. I did not expect a reply so soon. |
| JFarnham 18.07.2006 22:48 |
<b><FONT SIZE=4>Inu-Liger</b> wrote:Who's sucking who's titties here now? Come on quit defending him. Let him defend himself.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:You have to keep in mind that, even if Greg NOW has access to the archive(d) tapes and such where he COULD potentially now use data from the tapes to have more correct info for current and future editions of the book, he would have to sit and (re-)listen to all the available soundboard/multitrack tapes from concerts that HAVE been recorded, in complete sittings each, and log what songs and bits were played in each concert. Now, I don't think he was given access to the archive just for the sole purpose of having a book out there about what's been done live and such... I believe he is there to review, listen to and log the tapes for future use in projects like the long promised and delayed rarities box set, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround sound discs (or now, potentially HD DVD-A or BR-A high def. DVD's), etc. etc.. ...all for QP and related people, who he again does NOT work for, but does as a freelance position (although potentially involving clauses or NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) that might and could very well be limiting what he CAN tell us about what songs and such are in the archive)) If he had been able to have archive access when he first wrote the book, that book would never have been as error-riddled as it was. Now, I admit I've never read the book myself, so I don't know what's listed as being incorrect, but from what I've been gathering from Greg's posts, he does the best he can with available information that IS given to him. I myself would hope that someday Greg would be able to provide us with a 2nd revision of the book (or a 3rd edition) with more info to fill in or replace the unavailable or questionable data/bits, by being able to use info from available tapes. But I can only dream about that, for now. PS. I've intentionally been holding out until now on expressing my views about these matters involving Greg, for fear of being flamed due to my supporting Greg for certain reasons. I myself respect Greg a lot, and am in constant contact with him. He really is a nice chap to talk to, when you give him a chance. We've actually had some interesting conversations, and he's not as stupid as you guys seem to make him out to be.Queen Archivist wrote: QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.Greg, If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash. Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do. |
| Queen Archivist 18.07.2006 22:49 |
Mr JFARNHAM... My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you! I DONT'. THIS IS NOT TRUE. A LOT OF YOU SIMPLY DO DISLIKE ME (BORN OUT OF ENVY IN MOST CASES, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION). IT'S THAT SIMPLE. I RECOGNISE THIS OBVIOUS THING AND I ACCEPT IT. I DON'T CARE OR WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I RECOGNISE IT AND I ACCEPT IT. LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER WHAT IS SO PLAIN AND EVIDENT. I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know. I JUST GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET. NO MORE, NO LESS. THAT MAKES ME EASY TO HATE. JESUS, IS IT 'THAT' SHALLOW HERE! I have asked genuine questions and so have other zoners, but you just sit on your fat fucking ass and eat pork chops and avoid it every time! WELL YOU MUST KNOW WHY JF, YOU ARE NOT STUPID. WOULD YOU ROLL OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED? COME ON. GET REAL. YOU'RE SAYING SILLY THINGS NOW. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION, WITH MY HISTORY WITH ALL THE QZ-ERS WHO LOATH ME, AND WILL YOU ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS JF? JESUS! IT IS NOT NUCLEAR PHYSICS, MY SITUATION. So why not answer some questions and chill? AS ABOVE Maybe then you might be liked, FOR THE 10TH AND LAST TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEED OR DESIRE OR DEEP-ROOTED INSECURITY THAT COMPELLS ME TO WANT TO BE LIKED OR RESPECTED BY THE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON QZ (NOT ALL, BUT A LOT) WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME? and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get. YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL. I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL. WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT. |
| JFarnham 18.07.2006 22:56 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Mr JFARNHAM... My point also, Greg you act like we WANT to hate you! I DONT'. THIS IS NOT TRUE. A LOT OF YOU SIMPLY DO DISLIKE ME (BORN OUT OF ENVY IN MOST CASES, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION). IT'S THAT SIMPLE. I RECOGNISE THIS OBVIOUS THING AND I ACCEPT IT. I DON'T CARE OR WORRY ABOUT IT, BUT I RECOGNISE IT AND I ACCEPT IT. LET'S NOT ARGUE OVER WHAT IS SO PLAIN AND EVIDENT. I don't want to hate anyone, but you make it so damn easy you know. I JUST GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET. NO MORE, NO LESS. THAT MAKES ME EASY TO HATE. JESUS, IS IT 'THAT' SHALLOW HERE! I have asked genuine questions and so have other zoners, but you just sit on your fat fucking ass and eat pork chops and avoid it every time! WELL YOU MUST KNOW WHY JF, YOU ARE NOT STUPID. WOULD YOU ROLL OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED? COME ON. GET REAL. YOU'RE SAYING SILLY THINGS NOW. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION, WITH MY HISTORY WITH ALL THE QZ-ERS WHO LOATH ME, AND WILL YOU ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS JF? JESUS! IT IS NOT NUCLEAR PHYSICS, MY SITUATION. So why not answer some questions and chill? AS ABOVE Maybe then you might be liked, FOR THE 10TH AND LAST TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEED OR DESIRE OR DEEP-ROOTED INSECURITY THAT COMPELLS ME TO WANT TO BE LIKED OR RESPECTED BY THE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON QZ (NOT ALL, BUT A LOT) WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME? and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get. YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL. I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL. WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.Maybe i should read ALL of your posts then, i appreciate you not using your QZ attitude towards me, i am just curious about a few things but get no answers. I understand you have nothing to do with QPL, but your name here is QUEEN ARCHIVIST, with that said, if were the Pres. of the USA i wouldn't come here and present myself as that if wanted to be taken seriously and know that i would be wanted to answer simple questions. Why are you here (and that's not a bad question) and why (in english) wont you answer simple questions without dragging JSS into it and making it a 20 page post? |
| John S Stuart 18.07.2006 23:00 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Mr JFARNHAM... and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get. YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL. I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL. WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us. But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy. It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL. Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his! |
| JFarnham 18.07.2006 23:25 |
John S Stuart wrote:lol My point exactly, don't worry JSS i wont make it part of Farnham Productions!Queen Archivist wrote: Mr JFARNHAM... and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get. YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL. I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL. WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us. But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy. It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL. Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his! |
| MOANZONE TWAT 18.07.2006 23:58 |
JFarnham wrote:Just put it in the Queen Archives John, nobody will eveer find it again then! :) Hi Greg.John S Stuart wrote:lol My point exactly, don't worry JSS i wont make it part of Farnham Productions!Queen Archivist wrote: Mr JFARNHAM... and i agree with you on the whole 'i don't care if noone likes me' cause i don't, but you present yourself as QUEEN ARCHIVIST, not Greg Brooks, so then you get what you get. YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE WRITTEN ON HERE RECENTLY... MY THOUGHTS ARE MY OWN, NOT THOSE OF QPL. I REPRESENT MYSELF, NOT QUEEN OR QPL. WHAT I SAY IS FROM MY MOUTH, NOT THEIRS, AND I STAND BY IT.No - Not when you write under the authorative title: 'Queen Archivist'. Can you not see that is part of the problem? For example, as a person, in private, Tony Blair or George Bush can say what they like. They are people just like the rest of us. But, as soon as they adopt that mantle of 'Prime Minister', or 'President', then ofcourse, they are not as free to say what they like as individuals - as correctly so - anything they say in 'uniform' is accepted policy. It is the same in here. I write as an individual. If you wrote as Greg Brooks, you would have that right too. But as soon as you write under the banner of 'Queen Archivist' - like it or not - you do indeed become the public face and voice of QPL. Edit: I did not steal Mr Farnham's ideas, I wrote this as he was writing his! |
| The Real Wizard 19.07.2006 12:49 |
<b><FONT SIZE=4>Inu-Liger</b> wrote: You have to keep in mind that, even if Greg NOW has access to the archive(d) tapes and such where he COULD potentially now use data from the tapes to have more correct info for current and future editions of the book, he would have to sit and (re-)listen to all the available soundboard/multitrack tapes from concerts that HAVE been recorded, in complete sittings each, and log what songs and bits were played in each concert.Oh yeah, I'm dripping with sympathy for the fact that he'd have to spend months listening to soundboard tapes that I'd kill to hear. Give me a break! If he couldn't do the job correctly in the first place, then he shouldn't have done it at all. Period. Now, I admit I've never read the book myself, so I don't know what's listed as being incorrect, but from what I've been gathering from Greg's posts, he does the best he can with available information that IS given to him.If you haven't read the book, then you shouldn't be sticking up for him blindly. |
| inu-liger 19.07.2006 20:30 |
JFarnham wrote:I can very well defend him if I please. This isn't the fucking United States of America *cough*<b><FONT SIZE=4>Inu-Liger</b> wrote:Who's sucking who's titties here now? Come on quit defending him. Let him defend himself.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:You have to keep in mind that, even if Greg NOW has access to the archive(d) tapes and such where he COULD potentially now use data from the tapes to have more correct info for current and future editions of the book, he would have to sit and (re-)listen to all the available soundboard/multitrack tapes from concerts that HAVE been recorded, in complete sittings each, and log what songs and bits were played in each concert. Now, I don't think he was given access to the archive just for the sole purpose of having a book out there about what's been done live and such... I believe he is there to review, listen to and log the tapes for future use in projects like the long promised and delayed rarities box set, DVD-Audio 5.1 surround sound discs (or now, potentially HD DVD-A or BR-A high def. DVD's), etc. etc.. ...all for QP and related people, who he again does NOT work for, but does as a freelance position (although potentially involving clauses or NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) that might and could very well be limiting what he CAN tell us about what songs and such are in the archive)) If he had been able to have archive access when he first wrote the book, that book would never have been as error-riddled as it was. Now, I admit I've never read the book myself, so I don't know what's listed as being incorrect, but from what I've been gathering from Greg's posts, he does the best he can with available information that IS given to him. I myself would hope that someday Greg would be able to provide us with a 2nd revision of the book (or a 3rd edition) with more info to fill in or replace the unavailable or questionable data/bits, by being able to use info from available tapes. But I can only dream about that, for now. PS. I've intentionally been holding out until now on expressing my views about these matters involving Greg, for fear of being flamed due to my supporting Greg for certain reasons. I myself respect Greg a lot, and am in constant contact with him. He really is a nice chap to talk to, when you give him a chance. We've actually had some interesting conversations, and he's not as stupid as you guys seem to make him out to be.Queen Archivist wrote: QZ-ERS WILL KNOCK MOST THINGS. SERIOUSLY, IT IS THE NATURE OF QZ TO FIND FAULT FIRST, TO LOOK FOR THE ERRORS FIRST, PICK AND MOAN FIRST, AND THEN GRUDGINGLY COMMENT ON THE GOOD AFTERWARDS, IF AT ALL.Greg, If an engineer built a spacecraft that crashed, would the news anchor comment on how well the spacecraft flew for the eighteen hours before it crashed? Or would they focus on the crash? The flaw in the spacecraft meant it was built 99% well. The 1% caused the crash. Bottom line: If you are the archivist, then you should be completely certain that you are putting out accurate information for people to read. While about 95% of your book was correct, a 5% error rate is certainly not good, especially considering the things you have access to that none of us here do. PS. I'm defending him on MY own accord, before anyone potentially accuses me of following "instructions" from Greg, etc. PPS. I also noticed GH's signature: "Love your enemies; even the worst of us can love our neighbour." Perhaps we could follow that lead? |
| bohemian 11513 21.07.2006 16:33 |
Well... now that the "smoke has settled"... /queenzone/831667.html |
| Reading Princess 21.07.2006 20:29 |
Shall we all shut up for 24 hours in protest at what is going on in the Lebanon? Consideing that the people that are getting hurt are civillians? |
| bigV 21.07.2006 20:42 |
clear wrote: Shall we all shut up for 24 hours in protest at what is going on in the Lebanon? Consideing that the people that are getting hurt are civillians?I don't mean to sound insensitive, but perhaps the civilians should've done a better job electing their politicians. V. |
| The Real Wizard 22.07.2006 16:58 |
bigV wrote:Although that's a fair observation, it isn't exactly the most compassionate way to treat the situation now that it has escalated to this point.clear wrote: Shall we all shut up for 24 hours in protest at what is going on in the Lebanon? Consideing that the people that are getting hurt are civillians?I don't mean to sound insensitive, but perhaps the civilians should've done a better job electing their politicians. V. |
| deleted user 22.07.2006 17:19 |
It takes two to tango... |
| TRS-Romania 30.09.2006 17:32 |
Greg has a problem which is: Dissocial-Narcistic-Paranoid- Antisocial Personality Disorder Personality disorder, usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by - very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression - callous unconcern for the feelings of others - gross and persistent attitude of irresponsi- bility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations - persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights - perceives attacks on his or her character and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack - displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions - shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated _expression of emotion - shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes - markedly dysharmonious attitudes and behaviour, involving usually several areas of functioning, e.g. affectivity, arousal, impulse control, ways of perceiving and thinking, and style of relating to others |