QueenZone discussion #901035
MY QUEEN LIVE BOOK (1995) AND ITS ERRORS
| Queen Archivist 22.10.2006 19:26 |
DONNA13 raised a fair and valid point in a thread which I just saw, so I thought I'd create a thread (or posting; whatever the hell these things are called), in answer to it. DONNA wrote... I think any of the fans that are truly knowledgeable (and who also care enough to do something) should write to Greg 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). GB REPLIES... This is perfectly logical and sensible. I did exactly this about 2-3 years ago, in fact. I came here to QZ and asked people to send me details of any errors they knew about in my book. I genuinely wanted/want it to be correct too, obviously. I got some brilliant replies and a number of the errors were very blatant, and I made huge notes of each one (to present to my editor @ Omnibus Press). I think there were about 25 that were obviously wrong and which needed no checking. I made those changes accordingly. However, I think a further 40-50 points I was told of, were NOT confirmed by anyone else. People insisted that a certain song "Definitely" was not performed at such and such a gig, and other songs "definitely" were - and other errors of that nature... from people's memory, or from "what they'd been told by some bloke who said he was there." But when I said that I needed at least two confirmations of every piece of data (which is reasonable), they got all angry and wrote on QZ that they had told me of erros and I ignored them. NOT TRUE. ANY piece of information that I received twice, or more, WAS changed. I have all that stuff all re-written here. I was not prepared to take the casual word of just one fan, because... 1. Even the best intended fan can get things wrong in error. They believe whole heartedly that a certain song was missed out, but then it can later transpire, from another source, that maybe it WAS performed after all. Even the most helpful fan can get it wrong, even though well intended. That's why I insisted that no change would occur unless 2 or people conferred. 2. The are malicious gits out there that delibertately tell authors wrong data, just so they can then say, "Hey that piece of data on page 124 was from me, but it's crap, ha ha ha, aren't I clever and cunning!" Sad people who site such things as something to be proud of because it's the nearest they will ever come themselves to having something published. 3. It is good and sensible practise not to take only one person's word for anything. It is the same on TV and radio. A MAJOR event or death is never announced until it has come in from at least 2 sources. They will not go to press or to air on the say-so of ONLY one source. It's not good practise and people who break this rule get caught out very badly very often. Anyway.... (because the book was about to be re-pressed in small format, lat year) I eventually sent my editor details of 122 changes, AND I credited a further 42 people who passed on those changes. However, my editor then said, "Greg, these changes are extensive and therefor would necessitate a total RE-DESIGN of the book, from beginning to end, and there is no budget for that. This is NOT a new book, it is supposed to be merely and slightly updated version." I had to accept this. I was irritated too, because I had added new details and corrected the things that many good people had pointed out, but still that book of corrections sits on my desk and is NOT part of what's out there. I don't like this any more than you guys do, but |
| stateside fan 22.10.2006 21:18 |
Greg(or whoever this is) your book is probably the most informative book i have seen on Queen or any other band for that matter.Im sure 75% of the folks here have a copy and have found enjoyment reading it.The only issue i have is when you meet issues head on and seem to be a company stooge.I know writers cringe at the very thought of being a yes man because it takes the art out and makes you nothing more then PR guy.If we ask about "live Killers" for instance how about a straight answer?when you write songs may very well be from this show it seems you are guessing which destroys your credibility.If you would show a bit of courage and say yeah this ablbum is basically a fraud the real fans would then consider you a Journalist iwth some balls.Uncle Brian wont spank you Greg for being honest and if he did is this really what you want to be for the rest of your life?Just this once tell us what you know and why a talented Band like Queen needed to put that mess out on the market. |
| john bodega 22.10.2006 22:28 |
I didn't think YSM was actually 'hiding' anymore, I thought he came out of the ambiguity closet a short while ago? Ah well. Good luck convincing people that your book wasn't so bad - the only positive I can see in all this nonsense is... well, take it as a good thing that people care enough about Queen that they'd lambast an author of a Queen-related book, eh? |
| Togg 23.10.2006 03:55 |
Greg that is total nonesense. Firstly as the author of your book you should have simply not sent it to press with so many errors in the first edition, poor work very poor. Secondly, of course it's your decision as to what goes out in the second, that is bull. You and only you are responsible for the copy, if you are happy with a book being on shelf that contains so many errors that the publisher says it needs a re-design!!! then you care nothing for your work. I have been involved in publishing over many years and I can tell you if you have that many errors that the (editor??? publisher) tells you it needs a redesign you do it at your own expense if you really care, for gods sake it can't need so much of a re-design that you have to change everything, if it costs more than £1500 I would be amazed, and frankly you should be ashamed if it needs that amount of corrections. Either way if you are professional you wouldn't want a factually inaccurate book on the market, can you imagine Queen putting out a poor album? do you think Brian would be happy with sub standard work... no why are you? Edit/addition to original post... I would have to agree with other posters here that the first edition was much harder to create being that the internet didn't exist and the Queen community was not in direct contact with each other, so from that point I of view I have always felt you were working with the best material you had at the time, fair enough, however, the second edition is totally down to you in my view and whilst I understand the need to double check information, that IS what you are meant to do and you should investigate any information given to either prove or disprove it prior to publication. The cost issue is total nonsense, you simply don't send sub par work to press if you care about it at all and to say that there is no budget is just a way of getting out of the fact that you couldn't be bothered. It would not require a total re-design if it did then that would mean 60% of the first book was inaccurate and I find that hard to believe. As for the put up or shut up argument, well bull again, YOU chose to produce this, you should be professional enough to get it right, those of us here that have careers have to everyday you we lose our jobs, and those still students will soon find out that in the working world little error is tolerated. You might well say as you so often do "What have you done" well plenty, I run a company, I keep people employed, I have generated millions of pounds revenue for the UK over my working life, so I am happy with my lot. I haven't chosen to write a book about Queen , I have left that to the people that know better than me, like you Greg, of which I am confident you know far more than I ever will, all I ask is that you produce work to the same standard as Queen themselves or you let yourself and them and us down. You work on the Freddie box set was excellent, I loved it, it may well have items missing, but the quality and content were well produced, the book is another matter, as I said the first one was understandable, the second is in my eyes down to you alone. |
| john bodega 23.10.2006 04:54 |
"can you imagine Queen putting out a poor album?" We'll see! |
| Asterik 23.10.2006 06:24 |
Do that or shut up. He Wants It All and He Wants It Now! So it seems. |
| Togg 23.10.2006 06:58 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "can you imagine Queen putting out a poor album?" We'll see!I have to say I knew that would get comments from a certain crowd, but you get my drift, regardless of whether 'we' like the recorded material, Brian will aways produce work to the highest level he can. |
| The Real Wizard 23.10.2006 09:33 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I eventually sent my editor details of 122 changes, AND I credited a further 42 people who passed on those changes. However, my editor then said, "Greg, these changes are extensive and therefor would necessitate a total RE-DESIGN of the book, from beginning to end, and there is no budget for that. This is NOT a new book, it is supposed to be merely and slightly updated version." I had to accept this. I was irritated too, because I had added new details and corrected the things that many good people had pointed out, but still that book of corrections sits on my desk and is NOT part of what's out there. I don't like this any more than you guys do, but it was not my decision.Of course it was your decision. You have done a horrible disservice to Queen fans, and to Queen, for having a book full of nonsense about the band published, and later admitting that you were aware of the mistakes from the start. It looks horrible on the band, since you work for them. Did you tell Brian about this friendly conversation with your editor before he (Brian) wrote that forward in your book? This sounds like nothing but excuses to me. You were spoonfed the corrections from people, and you still couldn't get it right. The first book is excusable. There was no Internet and all. Fine. It was a good book and a good effort. But the second book is inexcusable, and all you're trying to do here is cover up for your mistakes, while actually admitting new ones! With that in mind, you have just completely destroyed your credibility, Greg. What you have just done is admit that you were fully aware of all the errors in your book, and that you okayed the book to be published and sold regardless. If you couldn't get the money from Queen Productions or elsewhere, then it's completely your fault for having having the book released instead of waiting for the correct time for it to come out. This whole situation is an embarrassment to all things Queen. I hope your reputation continues to crumble. You have nobody to blame but yourself. |
| The Fake Greg Brooks 23.10.2006 12:47 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I would be very happy for anyone to take on the task of checking my corrections... Even though many fans moan and moan about my book being "full of thousands of errors" they would still moan at efforts to rectify that situation... like they did last time. Do that or shut up. No one here has offerred a realistic solution - only criticism, as usual.Maybe it's your approach. I'm glad you're back, now I can get back to my job at Burger King. Pete, the shift supervisor, misses your work at the drive-thru window. He says your job will always be available... |
| john bodega 23.10.2006 13:16 |
Togg wrote:Oh of course, *I* get you :P I was actually pre-empting the RIP 1991 Nazis that usually come in right about..... now. Heh.Zebonka12 wrote: "can you imagine Queen putting out a poor album?" We'll see!I have to say I knew that would get comments from a certain crowd, but you get my drift, regardless of whether 'we' like the recorded material, Brian will aways produce work to the highest level he can. |
| .Jony. 23.10.2006 14:47 |
FFS, greg can't know everything on his own. cut the guy some slack even brian doesn't know entirely what recordings exist / don't exist in stead of talking from your ass, you'd better give some positive advice to greg when he asks for it |
| Going Back 23.10.2006 14:58 |
leave the man alone and do not insult him every fucking time ! that he wasted the time writing this book is great, fuck if you can do better then fucking do it or shut the hell up. |
| .Jony. 23.10.2006 15:26 |
Going Back wrote: leave the man alone and do not insult him every fucking time ! that he wasted the time writing this book is great, fuck if you can do better then fucking do it or shut the hell up.word man |
| Crezchi 23.10.2006 15:27 |
Greg, i agree that you have ruined any credibility that you had or will have by your statements. This is sad Greg, why would someone want to release a book knowing that there are that many errors without trying to rectify the situation? That would be like GM putting out a 2007 Chevrolet Brooks and knowing that the airbags do not work, see the simularity? Honestly i am not here to insult you, just to merely tell you the way i see it. I still have and like your book, but i wouldn't be the only one to swear by Queenconcerts.com now, only because of the day and age it is now, and the fact that there are alot less errors on the info, and this could be because of the fact that this person knows what is out there because they are a collector, and the fact that they will accept edits. But anyways, why not make a revised edition of this book, with edits and updated Q+PR and other concerts in it? Oh btw, hope Bri's lecture wasn't too harsh on you? lol |
| Lester Burnham 23.10.2006 15:45 |
Going Back wrote: leave the man alone and do not insult him every fucking time ! that he wasted the time writing this book is great, fuck if you can do better then fucking do it or shut the hell up.I am sick of this stance. Just because someone hasn't gotten a book published, does that mean that they are restricted from ever criticizing a published work? Just because someone isn't in a band, does that mean that they are restricted from ever criticizing an album release? My own book is being published in November, and while I'm terrified that I'll receive harsh criticism, I hope that the fans who know more than I do - and I know that's a lot! - will be able to assist me in making corrections and adding information for further publications. If there's anything that I'm missing, you can be damn sure that I'll make sure to add it to any updated version instead of just ignoring it. Greg and I have traded words previously - some were polite, some were not so polite - and while I'm disappointed that the second edition of his book was so error-ridden, I must give him considerable credit for his first edition. It was my bible back when I first got it; finally, a Queen book that I could really enjoy. I read it cover to cover, and if you were able to see my copy, you'd see that I wasn't lying. So I was excited and hopeful that the second edition would be even better, but I was disappointed. There was so much potential, but, apart from the indepth 1979 section and a few other sections, it was all the same with the same errors. I find the low budget excuse to be a bit dodgy; I can't imagine why a publisher would say that a major rehaul wouldn't be in order, especially if Greg knew about the errors. However, I'm willing to give Greg the benefit of the doubt, because not all publishing companies give a whole lot of freedom with second editions. The company that I submitted my book to is very cool and open; I'm certain that they will have no problem if I were to add on an extra 50,000 words for the second edition in a few years' time. Then again, Omnibus Press (which published Greg's book) also published The Who's live book, and updated it recently with a whole new section on concerts from 1997 to 2002. I haven't purchased it yet, but I'd even be willing to be that most of the glaring mistakes were corrected, too. So, what am I trying to say? Enough with the "put up or shut up" arguments. I would hope that when someone finds an error in my book, they will let me know so that I can quickly correct it. This is my solemn promise that I won't get bitchy, uppity, or defensive when someone spots an error and lets me know about it. I certainly won't counter with, "Well, this person doesn't have a listing on Amazon.com, so their opinion is worthless." And, if we're allowing published authors to critique other published authors, then let me just say that the second edition of Queen Live could have been so much better, and I'll only hope that, for the third edition, Greg actually listens to the fans and will let his publishers know that a more accurate publication is worth the money instead of saving some cash and continuing to put out incorrect information. |
| Penetration_Guru 23.10.2006 16:16 |
..but I can quite believe that Greg had no "right" to insist on the rewrite, and that it was entirely down to the publishers that the investment wasn't made. |
| Lester Burnham 23.10.2006 16:50 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: ..but I can quite believe that Greg had no "right" to insist on the rewrite, and that it was entirely down to the publishers that the investment wasn't made.That's a good point, but I didn't mean to imply that Greg insisted on republishing the book - generally, the author has no say in when a book is going to be revisited and is at the mercy of the publisher. I guess I just find it strange that a publisher would be willing to allow the same errors to be published, despite Greg alerting them to the corrections. I don't understand where the extra cost would come from; considering the book was a new template anyway, with a smaller font, yet still using most of the same pictures from the previous edition, the only notable changes were to be made in the text, which were no doubt written in Microsoft Word - the new text would just need to be reflowed into a new template, and if it ran considerably over the target page count, then some of the lengthier sections would merely need to be edited (or the page count would need to be increased). I work at a medical publishing company myself, and if any errors were found (or made) in the first edition of a book, or if new information is given, then the second edition is meticulous in pointing out the corrections / additions. I don't expect every publishing company to be the same, but it certainly can't be that bad at Omnibus Press that the money couldn't have been ponied up for a corrected book? blah blah blah |
| TRS-Romania 23.10.2006 16:54 |
Togg wrote: Greg that is total nonesense. Firstly as the author of your book you should have simply not sent it to press with so many errors in the first edition, poor work very poor. Secondly, of course it's your decision as to what goes out in the second, that is bull. You and only you are responsible for the copy, if you are happy with a book being on shelf that contains so many errors that the publisher says it needs a re-design!!! then you care nothing for your work. I have been involved in publishing over many years and I can tell you if you have that many errors that the (editor??? publisher) tells you it needs a redesign you do it at your own expence if you really care, for gods sake it can't need so much of a re-design that you have to change everything, if it costs more than £1500 I would be amazed, and frankly you should be ashamed if it needs that amount of corrections. Either way if you are professional you wouldn't want a factually inaccurqate book on the market, can you imagine Queen putting out a poor album? do you think Brian would be happy with sub standard work... no why are you?Togg, you are completely right!!!! I worked in publishing and printing as well... and your point of view is solid (regarding the "budget comment" for instance) And if GB seems to ignore this, he is either a bad negotiator or just blatantly ignorant ... but that is just my HUMBLE opinion !!! My comment towards GB remains as always " hahahahahaha" (greg, you know what i mean!) |
| Donna13 23.10.2006 16:58 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: ..but I can quite believe that Greg had no "right" to insist on the rewrite, and that it was entirely down to the publishers that the investment wasn't made.I'm sure that everybody has moments of panic after publishing hard copies of anything. A web page would be a good way (and fast way) for Greg to list corrections and updates. Or would this sort of thing also be under the control of the publisher? |
| TRS-Romania 23.10.2006 17:10 |
- |
| TRS-Romania 23.10.2006 17:11 |
sorry wrong post |
| bas asselbergs 23.10.2006 18:58 |
I like both books. Errors and all. I also understand Greg, and the fans who reply politely for that matter too. In the end, at the end of the day, bottomline, it comes down to what YOU, the fans out there, can really add, correct and contribute to get it ALL right, WITH solid proof and evidence, and not just hear-say, gossip stories of songs being played at shows yes or no. Greg has asked YOU guys for help so many times, and in my humble opinion, asking for help is completely something different than letting the fans do the dirty work for him. He has already done SO much work, and he had the guts to start working on it, and in the end was rewarded the most privileged position any Queen-fan in this universe can possibly dream of. And YOU lot, only react negative and jealous. You think you are in a position to judge, or demand anything at all from Greg? He simply can't tell everything, and YOU most certainly are NOT in title to know it all too. There will be future releases with zillions of surprises, that will be surprises because he doesn't spoil the surprise by not telling you! So we will be pleasantly surprised in the future. I love the Freddie collection immmense! And if the Queen-box-set will be anything like that, we are in for major enjoyment! SO...IF YOU really think YOU can do a better job then Greg, be my guest! I doubt it. For if any of you were any better at all, you would be in the vaults and studios having tea with Bri and Rog listening to things that we now still don't know of that they exist ....but the fact is, that Greg has this honour. Because HE deserves it. And you are NOT. i wonder why....... So, as Greg so beautifully stated a while ago: PUT UP.... or SHUT UP! AMEN !!! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 23.10.2006 19:03 |
Bas, that could possibly be the stupidest post in the history of QZ. |
| Lester Burnham 23.10.2006 19:07 |
That "put up or shut up" argument is a pathetic defense, showing that Queen fans really are willing to accept something mediocre. It's a knee-jerk response when they can't think of anything intelligent to say. I agree that unjustified criticism is useless, but surely people here have offered constructive criticism to Greg? I know I've tried. |
| Deacon Fan 23.10.2006 19:38 |
I understand and accept Greg's explanation. The only thing I wish had been different is if you'd posted this information BEFORE many fans bought this new edition. You've been around here, and you have access to getting notices placed on Brian's site, etc. Plenty of opportunities to warn fans that it wouldn't be full of corrections. Obviously that would hurt sales, but it would have been the right thing to do :) |
| Bobby_brown 23.10.2006 20:28 |
My advice to Greg Brooks is to simply ignore the unconstructive replys. You just don´t guive him a chance whatsoever! What i see here is beyond comprehension. I was about to write this on another topic sometime ago, but here it is what i think: I think that there are about five or six people that really want/wish that Greg gets fired.That´s why all the cristicism. You just wish that "Someone" reads this! What i don´t understand is: What kind of joy do you guys take from all the criticizing? What kind of people are you? There is one thing i´m gonna say to you, and please do read and meditate on this words: As Brian MAy fans you people are missing one of his most spirituals teachings, and that is the Law of Karma: What goes around comes around. When i see those replys full with anger and envy feelings i really feel sorry for you guys, because the world is your mirror, whether you like it or not! So, when you criticize Greg, you´re realling criticizing the part of you that you just can´t stand!! Constructive cristicism in Queenzone reminds me the expression "Devil in desguise". I don´t see honest criticism from you guys at all! Think about this: What is that is hurting you so much, that you have to hurt other people feelings to get relief? Please, do meditate on this and don´t create more bad Karma than what you´ve already have for your dailly routine. If you want to take this personally, please do. But before you do it, please go and read again your replys concerning this subject. And take some time analising your life, and how would you feel if someone started to criticize you in the same way. Don´t you guys need to be criticized? In the back of your head can you remember a moment when life has kept you from being humiliated? And sometimes you deserved it (you know you did), but for some reason it didn´t happened? Do you guys guive the same chance to other people? This is just a Forum, but we all have responsabilities, and in this case i think things have already gonne too far. Not fun anymore! Take care |
| Champipple 23.10.2006 20:47 |
Jeez not you again. Why do you bother posting here anyways? I wish Brian or someone would just tell you to shut up. |
| pow wow 24.10.2006 08:28 |
young_strat_man wrote: Greg, email me, i have something for you. And this is very serious, not a gag. You will want these videos.He's got enough porno's!! |
| Sebastian 24.10.2006 08:54 |
> Just because someone hasn't gotten a book published, does that mean that they are restricted from ever criticizing a published work? I agree - I don't know why so many people have to be that grumpy, they always answer with a "have you done something better?" sort of thing. And IMHO, just because nobody (else) had done a book like that at the time, it didn't give Greg the right to publish it with that amount of mistakes. > My own book is being published in November, and while I'm terrified that I'll receive harsh criticism Let's see the options: - Great book, polite author (which is what I'm sure will be): No problem, except for those who feel jealous and who will moan about the cover or whatever. - Great book, unpolite author: You may gain some more mordacious criticism. - Poor book, polite author: Some will like it, some won't, but few will actually notice the mistakes. - Poor book, grumpy author: If somebody puts it down, you can always say "put up or belt up" ;) > I hope that the fans who know more than I do - and I know that's a lot! - will be able to assist me in making corrections and adding information for further publications. Why don't you send some working versions or consult your doubts? > Greg has asked YOU guys for help so many times, and in my humble opinion, asking for help is completely something different than letting the fans do the dirty work for him. In this case it's basically the same. > He has already done SO much work Yes, but most of it has been outright inaccurate. > and he had the guts to start working on it I agree, but that doesn't justify his mistakes, let alone his grumpy attitude. > For if any of you were any better at all, you would be in the vaults and studios having tea with Bri and Rog listening to things that we now still don't know of that they exist ....but the fact is, that Greg has this honour. If life worked like that (quality = success), people like John S. Stuart and Mr Scully would be putting together the Queen Encyclopaedia, Rupert Murdoch would be a beggar and Treana Morris would be swimming on platinum records. |
| theCro 24.10.2006 09:02 |
Greg, please answer me just this question: IS THERE OR THERE IS NOT VERSION OF FREDDIE SINGING "DRIVEN BY YOU" [demo, full track or whatever!] Thanks |
| The Real Wizard 24.10.2006 11:41 |
bas asselbergs wrote: He has already done SO much workSince you're the expert, then tell us, honestly, in the last ten years, what has he done? Besides releasing a book in which most of its corrections were done by other people like me, and playing the part of the puppet to tell us again and again that the boxed set has been delayed, I honestly can't think of anything. Maybe you know something I don't know. Or maybe Greg can tell us what he's been so busy with since he got the job, because he hasn't really said much about what has been accomplished. |
| Cwazy little thing 24.10.2006 12:01 |
I wish people wouldnt come bursting into Greg Brooks threads trying to get him to tell us whether Freddie recorded this song, or whether theres a 900 minute version of BO Rap out there- its such a waste of time. He clearly isnt going to reveal anything, because firstly he never has before, and secondly I suspect in order to maintain excitement about potential future products, and a sense of mystery, which no doubt does wonders for sales, he's probably not allowed to tell us what does and doesnt exist on here! Besides - asking stuff like that takes away from the fantastic discussions already happening in these threads! |
| Lester Burnham 24.10.2006 12:30 |
Sebastian wrote: > Just because someone hasn't gotten a book published, does that mean that they are restricted from ever criticizing a published work? I agree - I don't know why so many people have to be that grumpy, they always answer with a "have you done something better?" sort of thing. And IMHO, just because nobody (else) had done a book like that at the time, it didn't give Greg the right to publish it with that amount of mistakes. > My own book is being published in November, and while I'm terrified that I'll receive harsh criticism Let's see the options: - Great book, polite author (which is what I'm sure will be): No problem, except for those who feel jealous and who will moan about the cover or whatever. - Great book, unpolite author: You may gain some more mordacious criticism. - Poor book, polite author: Some will like it, some won't, but few will actually notice the mistakes. - Poor book, grumpy author: If somebody puts it down, you can always say "put up or belt up" ;) > I hope that the fans who know more than I do - and I know that's a lot! - will be able to assist me in making corrections and adding information for further publications. Why don't you send some working versions or consult your doubts?I had tremendous help from Bob (Sir GH) who looked over some of what I wrote and offered corrections and even suggested that I rewrite some of the harsher entries. I would've consulted more people, but I simply ran out of time - not a good excuse I know, but this whole publication deal came up pretty quickly, and I found myself with six months remaining to complete the whole project. However, I don't see any reason to get upset about criticism (especially on a karmic level - what a weird argument), so I expect to treat people the same if they love my book or hate my book: with respect and politeness. I can guarantee you won't see me bursting in here every so months with a poorly-written tirade against the next so-and-so who has a beef with me. |
| YourValentine 24.10.2006 13:35 |
You know, Lester - the good thing about someone criticising your book is the fact that he/she actually bought it:) |
| Bobby_brown 24.10.2006 14:08 |
Lester Burnham wrote: However, I don't see any reason to get upset about criticism (especially on a karmic level - what a weird argument), so I expect to treat people the same if they love my book or hate my book: with respect and politeness. I can guarantee you won't see me bursting in here every so months with a poorly-written tirade against the next so-and-so who has a beef with me.I hope your book will sell good. My argument might seem weird, but it´s not weird at all. It´s reallity!! Respect and politness is what is needed in Queenzone. I don´t think it´s respectfull and polite (this is not directed to you, it´s just my views of the last couple of years regarding Greg Brooks and Queenzone) to tell in anyone´s face the "your work is shite, and your a lazy ...." in PUBLIC. I was allways told that if you want to reward someone for his good work, then do it publicly. This way, it will lead others to share those standards. If you want to criticize someone (in a bad but constructive way), then do it in private. That way you avoid public humilliation! As a forum we can discuss Greg´s work, but if we know that he´s reading, the least we can do is try to be polite towards his work. Try to explain our ideas the best way we can. If you see Brian in the street you´re not going to say the "Hot Space is Shite", probably you´ll try to find better words to describe you thoughts towards it. more later... Take care |
| John S Stuart 24.10.2006 16:24 |
Cwazy little thing wrote: I wish people wouldnt come bursting into Greg Brooks threads trying to get him to tell us whether Freddie recorded this song, or whether theres a 900 minute version of BO Rap out there- its such a waste of time. He clearly isnt going to reveal anything, because firstly he never has before, and secondly I suspect in order to maintain excitement about potential future products, and a sense of mystery, which no doubt does wonders for sales, he's probably not allowed to tell us what does and doesnt exist on here...Cwazy little thing: With respect, what a load of nonsense. When the first box-set is planned for release, the track-listing will leak onto the internet within 15 minutes, and when the first test pressing is cut, that too will leak within 15 minutes of publication. Am I really that dumb, that I am expected to believe that sales of the box-set will be irreparably damaged, because I have been previously informed that a version of ‘Modern Times Rock And Roll’ resides in the vaults with Freddie on vocals? So why all the cloak and dagger? There is no difference between rude and ignorance, and to ignore politely requested information – or indeed to answer with an arrogant aside – is, (IMHO) patronising arrogance in the extreme. |
| bas asselbergs 24.10.2006 19:28 |
Greg has done a lot of work that we don't know anything about, yes sir. He came up with the 10cd+2dvd set of Freddie. We hadn't got a clue before the release was finished what it would all contain. And there was a lot in there that even pleasantly surprised you complainers and know-betters too. I agree that it isn't complete, with the Elton John, Michael jackson and Time projects missing for instance, but it still is a super item! I believe that he is doing the same great job for the definitive anthology that is due to be released in (November?) 2009. If we don't hear much now, we will later, and then you can know the reason why he's got the job, instead of other people like you. It isn't supposed to be out here for the fans, before properly worked on and put together. He can keep a secret a secret, that is why you guys seem to be so pissed. And that my dears, is exactly why you think so negative about Greg. He doesn't give answers he isn't supposed or allowed to give. Nothing comes out, but he did play some awesome tracks again at the last dutch meeting, that i was very pleased to hear...You're jealous i guess, at the position he's worked himself into? He could tell us zillions of facts, put many things on the web or make illegal copies for "serious fans and collectors" and be a big leaking outlet hole, but because he is made of the (for Queen) right material and doesn't do al that, you can do nothing else than complain and give negative comments. If you guys know all the mistakes, then what do you need a book without mistakes for anyway? If they were taken out, would you then know more?............? |
| Lester Burnham 24.10.2006 23:43 |
Boy am I glad that I can now say that I put something up instead of shutting up, because that makes everything I say far more authentic. People will HAVE to believe everything I say now, and if they don't then, no matter how knowledgable they may be, their opinion is worthless because they haven't had a book published! Life is so good right now. |
| The Real Wizard 25.10.2006 01:52 |
bas asselbergs wrote: Greg has done a lot of work that we don't know anything about, yes sir.All together, let's all praise Greg for the work he has done that there is no evidence of! Hurrah! He came up with the 10cd+2dvd set of Freddie.Exactly how much of that was Greg's doing, and what proof is there? If he compiled that boxed set the same way he "compiled" his book, then I bet it wasn't too much on his part. If you guys know all the mistakes, then what do you need a book without mistakes for anyway? If they were taken out, would you then know more?............?Although some people see the mistakes, the overwhelming majority of readers don't see them, and they will assume they are reading facts. That is the problem. Some of us would like to see a book with new information, not hundreds of mistakes from the original that weren't corrected. But since Greg knows he's catering to the majority who don't see the errors, he can afford to be lazy with his book and make excuses that only a few people will hear about. Doesn't this concern you? |
| Queen Archivist 25.10.2006 05:17 |
Greg, please answer me just this question: IS THERE OR THERE IS NOT VERSION OF FREDDIE SINGING "DRIVEN BY YOU" [demo, full track or whatever!] Thanks NOT THAT I KNOW OF. I HAVE NEVER SEEN OR HEARD ANY SUCH TAPE OR RECORDING. I WILL ASK BRIAN WHEN I SEE HIM NEXT - OR JUSTIN SHIRLEY SMITH. |
| Benn 25.10.2006 06:42 |
Greg, With regard to my post on the other thread........THANK YOU - this is EXACLTY what people are looking for here. If you can follow that all up you would be serving the Queen community in the best possible way! |
| The Real Wizard 25.10.2006 11:55 |
Okay people, here is the solution: POST YOUR QUESTIONS IN CAPS. THAT SEEMS TO WORK! |
| Togg 25.10.2006 12:03 |
Lol, maybe all this time it's just because he needed new glasses! |
| The Real Wizard 25.10.2006 12:05 |
Haha, maybe so! GREG, HOW MANY CONCERTS WERE PROFESSIONALLY FILMED BETWEEN 1976 and 1978? |
| Hank H. 25.10.2006 14:28 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Haha, maybe so! GREG, HOW MANY CONCERTS WERE PROFESSIONALLY FILMED BETWEEN 1976 and 1978?It won't work, you have to write the numbers in capitals as well. |
| The Real Wizard 26.10.2006 03:36 |
Hank H. wrote: It won't work, you have to write the numbers in capitals as well.I guess I've lost my chance, then. In the style of the Seinfeld soup nazi: NO INFO FOR YOU! |
| Sebastian 26.10.2006 10:06 |
Can't anybody ban this tart? |
| Cwazy little thing 28.10.2006 07:40 |
John S Stuart wrote:John - I dont disagree with most of that - the fact is there are people - yourself included who have some good idea about what may or may not exist already, and youre right about internet leaks and suchlike.Cwazy little thing wrote: I wish people wouldnt come bursting into Greg Brooks threads trying to get him to tell us whether Freddie recorded this song, or whether theres a 900 minute version of BO Rap out there- its such a waste of time. He clearly isnt going to reveal anything, because firstly he never has before, and secondly I suspect in order to maintain excitement about potential future products, and a sense of mystery, which no doubt does wonders for sales, he's probably not allowed to tell us what does and doesnt exist on here...Cwazy little thing: With respect, what a load of nonsense. When the first box-set is planned for release, the track-listing will leak onto the internet within 15 minutes, and when the first test pressing is cut, that too will leak within 15 minutes of publication. Am I really that dumb, that I am expected to believe that sales of the box-set will be irreparably damaged, because I have been previously informed that a version of ‘Modern Times Rock And Roll’ resides in the vaults with Freddie on vocals? So why all the cloak and dagger? There is no difference between rude and ignorance, and to ignore politely requested information – or indeed to answer with an arrogant aside – is, (IMHO) patronising arrogance in the extreme. What I was really getting at was people trying to prise info from GB left right and centre, in completely unrelated threads. Out of sheer curiosity I scan these types of threads, and theres always some random Joe who takes it as an oppurtunity to ask some irrelevant question - it just seems silly. That said, I think GB was making a point, and probably taking the mickey a bit above when he decided to actually answer someones' question - probably based on what you said in reply to me. I just reckon there should be a separate thread for genuine questions to Greg. I wouldnt think he'd be in the mood to answer them mid-retort to someone in one of these, lol. And absolutely - you deserve an answer to a legitimate question - either in the form of an explanation for the "cloak and dagger", or with the information you actually desire. Maybe its all gone a bit far for that with Greg though - theres been so many slanging wars on here, I doubt he'd bother to get involved with sensible questions; he clearly doesnt like most of the people on here- which again leads me back to thinking its pointless asking in the first place - particularly in the middle of a thread such as this. |