Freddies Delilah 17.10.2006 00:02 |
Ok, this may be a really stupid question, and I feel like a total idiot having to ask it. But who IS Greg Brooks? When I'm reading through the forum I see loads of posts about him, but who is he? I'm sorry for sounding like an idiot about this, but I'd really like to know. Thanks |
The Real Wizard 17.10.2006 00:38 |
Greg is employed by Queen as their official archivist. About 10 years ago, he wrote a book called "Queen Live - A Concert Docmentary", and although there were hundreds of errors, the book was still pretty impressive, as it was created before the Internet age. This is what landed him his job, as Queen were surely impressed, errors aside. However, he released an "updated" version of the book last year, and most of the errors are still there, including a whole bunch of new errors. He made very little effort to offer much new information about Queen concerts, even though he supposedly has access to all of the recordings and information in Queen's vaults. Fans constantly ask him about what's in Queen's vaults, but it's becoming increasingly evident that he has been told not to reveal anything. One has to wonder what his job actually entails, as it seems pretty clear that he hasn't really done anything of any value, considering his position. link "Greg Brooks Queen" Haha... look at the third result! |
pow wow 17.10.2006 06:36 |
I heard that he was never even first choice for the job. It was initailly offered to Jim Jenkins who co wrote 'As it Began' - a great book I might add. |
Donna13 17.10.2006 11:10 |
I think any of the fans that are truly knowledgeable (and who also care enough to do something) should write to Greg (with a copy to Brian and/or QPL) a "nice" letter, and offer their services for editing of text, identification of pictures, correction of errors, etc. It wouldn't hurt to have a few experts helping for quality control regardless of who gets his name on a book (or whatever the project is). I would start by sending a list of the errors from Greg's book to Greg. Or has this already been done? It seems that with today's electronic communication, lots of good could come of this type of collaboration with the fans (and the collectors). |
The Real Wizard 17.10.2006 12:20 |
Donna13 wrote: I would start by sending a list of the errors from Greg's book to Greg. Or has this already been done?Yes, it has. When he was "writing" his second book, he asked people to submit to him corrections from the first book. I did that, and surely many others did as well. But it seems we were mostly ignored, since most of the errors from his first book weren't fixed. Half of the 70s setlists are still wrong, even though I sent him all the corrected ones. I spent weeks listing every little thing that was wrong with the book, and he only used a couple dozen or so. In many cases, he didn't bother to paraphrase, and copied my observations word for word. He has a long list of people to thank in the acknowledgements, so when you consider how few changes there were from the first book to the second book, it makes you wonder how much work Greg actually did on this book himself (hence the quotation marks above on the word "writing"). In addition, Greg asked me to compile the information from all sources for the book, which obviously would have been a hefty job. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said there was no budget for this kind of thing. So I thought... wow, he'll get someone else to do all the work, and he'll sit on his arse and bring in all the royalties. I think not! I politely declined. I wonder if Brian May is aware of this. This has led me to begin writing my own book. I now regret being part of Greg's book, because if my book gets published and sold, I can only imagine how some people will criticize me for "copying" Greg's work, when in reality, it's my words in his book. There will also be those who will say certain things in my book must be wrong, because my words disagree with Greg's words, which to them is the definitive work on Queen live, just because of his title. It's so frustrating to even think about it. But it won't stop me! |
ok.computer 17.10.2006 14:38 |
pow wow wrote: I heard that he was never even first choice for the job. It was initailly offered to Jim Jenkins who co wrote 'As it Began' - a great book I might add.Y'know - and this is ONLY my opinion - I thought that while As It Began was a mine of excellent information, it was one of the worst pieces of prose I've ever seen... Still enjoyed it though... :-) |
The Fake Greg Brooks 17.10.2006 14:53 |
I am Greg Brooks, and I am the expert in all things Queen. And you? ARE NOT! |
Jjeroen 17.10.2006 15:04 |
Well, Bob, you can sure make it 'more' definate when you include QPR... Maybe even solo-tours! At least there is an oppertunity to make it even more thorough then anything out there in THAT sence ;-) |
Sergei. 17.10.2006 17:05 |
Woah.. wait a sec... So Is our spammer "Queen Archivist" the real Greg Brooks or is he a faker? |
Donna13 17.10.2006 17:26 |
"In addition, Greg asked me to compile the information from all sources for the book, which obviously would have been a hefty job. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said there was no budget for this kind of thing. So I thought... wow, he'll get someone else to do all the work, and he'll sit on his arse and bring in all the royalties. I think not! I politely declined. I wonder if Brian May is aware of this." I think this is a very unfortunate situation. I mean, I wish there was a way you could be paid for the stuff you gave him already. With GB now having access to QPL and "the vault" and Brian's things, and you having your information and collection, it would be good if the two of you could "team up". |
Freddies Delilah 17.10.2006 22:18 |
Thanks for all the help, guys :-) Now I can actually sleep at night... |
Donna13 17.10.2006 22:48 |
<font color=teal>Barzini<h6>Cookie<h6> wrote: Woah.. wait a sec... So Is our spammer "Queen Archivist" the real Greg Brooks or is he a faker?He is the real thing. I think he got pulled into the conversations here based on something that he found out that someone was saying about him here. I forget - but it was something like that. It is all there if you search for all his posts and read the first several. Now, The Fake Greg Brooks is there just to take up the slack. And answer questions that the Real Greg Brooks is too busy to answer. He is like the Santa Claus at the mall. Except that he is still in training, and he takes off too much time to watch football. So, we can not be sure of anything he says - too much spicy food, really. |
Sergei. 17.10.2006 23:05 |
Donna13 wrote::D Lol@Santa Claus<font color=teal>Barzini<h6>Cookie<h6> wrote: Woah.. wait a sec... So Is our spammer "Queen Archivist" the real Greg Brooks or is he a faker?He is the real thing. I think he got pulled into the conversations here based on something that he found out that someone was saying about him here. I forget - but it was something like that. It is all there if you search for all his posts and read the first several. Now, The Fake Greg Brooks is there just to take up the slack. And answer questions that the Real Greg Brooks is too busy to answer. He is like the Santa Claus at the mall. Except that he is still in training, and he takes off too much time to watch football. So, we can not be sure of anything he says - too much spicy food, really. Thanks :P Now i can sleep at night too.... |
The Real Wizard 17.10.2006 23:38 |
jeroen wrote: Well, Bob, you can sure make it 'more' definate when you include QPR... Maybe even solo-tours! At least there is an oppertunity to make it even more thorough then anything out there in THAT sence ;-)Actually, I don't plan on including anything after 1986, since it's all so well-documented. I don't know what I can add to what's commonly available. Besides, my expertise doesn't lie in the QPR stuff. I think the only thing I could do is point out all the "Roger... AHHHHHHH" moments on bootlegs so people could find them. |
Maz 18.10.2006 01:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested.jeroen wrote: Well, Bob, you can sure make it 'more' definate when you include QPR... Maybe even solo-tours! At least there is an oppertunity to make it even more thorough then anything out there in THAT sence ;-)Actually, I don't plan on including anything after 1986, since it's all so well-documented. I don't know what I can add to what's commonly available. Besides, my expertise doesn't lie in the QPR stuff. I think the only thing I could do is point out all the "Roger... AHHHHHHH" moments on bootlegs so people could find them. Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook. |
Smitty 18.10.2006 01:06 |
You know what REALLY scares me? If ANYONE wants to look for anything in those archives, they are going to be SO fucked up... |
John S Stuart 18.10.2006 08:41 |
The biggest problem for any independent author is the restriction of access to any of the surviving Queen band members - and the referral (or deferral) of all things Queen to Greg. This is very bad practice as any intellectual discussion can not be restricted to a single solitary source. For example, Greg recently wrote in here that ‘…no Bohemian Rhapsody video out-takes exist…’ However, although I do not own these, I have viewed them, and they are in the possession of a collector whom I nick-name the ‘anti-Greg’. (My apologies if he actually sees this – but it is meant as a term of respect and ‘affection'). This now creates two separate problems: First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay. Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’. Unfortunately, for the likes of myself, Bob, Lester and others, the ‘challenge’ from Greg to produce ‘something’ is rather hollow, considering that he is the only gateway to official sources, so unless there is someway to circumvent his involvement, (which there isn’t because of his official status), it is impossible to create something fresh and unique because the tools to do so – do not exist. Finally, even if these obstacles were surmountable, once the product was out there, it would not be viewed as a heavyweight of academic research, but, like the Queen entries in ‘Wikipedia’, perceived with both derision and suspicion. And while it could be argued that this is the case for all ‘unofficial’ materials, for all bands or celebrities, at least Paul MacCartney, Robert Plant, Alex Ferguson, or whoever, are willing to talk to alternative journalistic sources, so there is far more opportunity to produce something both unique and entertaining. That is one reason why I prefer being in here - instead of 'the printed word'. As a lazy sod, perhaps after my death, some enterprising soul could collect my 'Record Collector' features and my Queenzone threads and replies (there are quite a few over on Queenonline also), as I guess there is as much info there as to rival anthing Greg has done so far... |
The Fake Greg Brooks 18.10.2006 12:34 |
Greg was detained the other day after he was found slumped in his car with two empty bottles of oregano and a real sore throat. I'm filling in until he makes bail. |
The Real Wizard 18.10.2006 14:08 |
John S Stuart wrote: First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay. Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.Excellent post, John. This is exactly the problem we face. Zeni wrote: If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested. Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook.You're right. I will have to start to seriously consider this. What can you suggest I do to research things from 1987 onward? |
Rick 18.10.2006 15:27 |
His real name is Gregor Brookska, he is Russian and he was the righthand of Stalin. |
Jjeroen 18.10.2006 17:19 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Well, the 'average' reader doesn't know who Greg Brooks is and will take his word as valuable as any other writer.John S Stuart wrote: First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay. Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.Excellent post, John. This is exactly the problem we face.Zeni wrote: If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested. Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook.You're right. I will have to start to seriously consider this. What can you suggest I do to research things from 1987 onward? The 'special interest' reader (who is the kind of reader you are actually aiming at!) will know the situation round Greg Brooks and might even know who YOU are and/or where you come from. I would NOT let this get in my way at any time. ==== And yes, I sincerely suggest you 'add' something new to the book by talking about everything post 1986. It will give your book that special purpose and something to differenciate it from anything that has already been written. Greg always says that it';s not worth writing anything unless it adds something significant to everyhting already out there. This is the chance AND the time, becuase you will be the first to print in book form all that happened after 1986. Where to get the info? You know enough people in the queenworld that will happily help you, and you know it. Besides, like you said, it's the best documented part of the entire queen history. Think about it. DO IT I'd say! I'd be more then happy to help you and I think you know what I can mean for you in that! ;-) |
Maz 18.10.2006 21:01 |
Since I don't have to do any of the legwork..... I think the complete concertography would be best. Martin has the best site around for most of that type of info, but I am always a fan of a good book over html. If you could add any of the flavor (more info on particular shows, etc) that Martin's site misses out on, that would be best. But a complete post-1986, solos and all, concertography would be great. And I disagree with Jeroen on this bit - you have to aim at the average reader (which is why "complete" gives you an edge), otherwise publishers wouldn't be that interested. People who would buy a Queen Live book are in the minority already (how many QZers own Greg's book now?), so why make it an even smaller pool? |
Lester Burnham 18.10.2006 22:10 |
Speaking as someone who is about to have a book published, I feel like I should mention that my book does deal somewhat with the post-1986 concerts, but it's certainly not as comprehensive as it could be (I was rushed toward the end - six months really goes by...) and not as comprehensive as I would be interested in making it. In fact, Bob, I kind of left the live section of my book fairly generic in hopes of you coming along and writing a book that was more specific. |
Togg 19.10.2006 03:58 |
Looking forward to your book Lester, it will certianly be on my shopping list |
the fireplace 21.10.2006 06:09 |
Well, it would be a good idea if some of the most "informed" queen-zoners like J. Stuart, Lester, etc... would gather and write thier own book. At least an information book (deatiled discography, tourography, setlists, etc...) It could be a simple word, or pdf file, so that it could be always corrected and improved. Or a file like "Bijou". Instead of starting another boring thread "Queenzone vs. Greg Brooks"... |
The Real Wizard 23.10.2006 09:48 |
John S Stuart wrote: First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay. Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.Now that Greg has admitted he was aware of his book's errors from day one (while making yet another excuse about their existence), I can only say that this problem outlined by John will hopefully diminish over time. link |
7Innuendo7 24.10.2006 08:00 |
I'm interested in hearing what Jim Jenkins has to say about 'the archivist.' Hope I haven't missed anything. Any author can tell you -- it's the re-writing where talent comes out. Maybe Greg's book is in the category of "fairy tales that grow but never die" ! |