QueenZone discussion #901992

Queen Archivist wrote: The book was conceived and written for people just like you.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Queen Archivist wrote: The book was conceived and written for people just like you.

Exactly... for the people who aren't big enough fans to notice the mistakes on almost every page. Like I've said before, you can cater to the average fan all you want Greg, but the true hardcore and knowledgeable Queen fans can see through you. You obviously know this, and that's why you get so upset with anyone who is critical of your work, even though we are in the minority. You can get the majority to stick up for you and have them believe that it's okay to release a book full of errors, because they don't notice the errors themselves. What if you were a scientist and you released a book on chemistry, and got the atomic masses of 1/4 of the elements wrong? Would moderate scientific enthusiasts say, "That's okay Dr. Brooks, we know you meant well", and then attack the true scientists for pointing out the flaws? Or would the worldwide scientific community go to all lengths to ban the book from publication because it is spreading incorrect facts about their field of study? Why shouldn't this apply to your book?

.Jony. wrote: unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.

what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?

.Jony. wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [

unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

.Jony. wrote: unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.

If science isn't up for debate, then why are scientists constantly improving their theories, and coming out with new experiments to prove new things?

what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?

You may be a hardcore fan of their music, but you're not too knowledgeable of their history if you can read a book on the band without seeing at least some of its mistakes. In this particular case, you can't know too much about their concerts if you can't see that half of his setlists from the 70s are wrong. Greg made mistakes in his book on things that haven't been debated for years, as they had been proven otherwise long ago. What I'd like to know is, why do people like you automatically stick up for him before you even know what the errors are? No need for the name calling. All I need to say towards you personally is that you are a prime example of the kind of fan Greg is writing for. You are indeed a big fan, but you just haven't read up on their concert history and listened to the bootlegs enough to see how error-ridden his work is. To someone like myself who is highly knowledgeable of Queen's concert history, Greg's book is a frustrating read because I know it could be so much more than it is. I must be in the overwhelming minority if even a big fan such as yourself doesn't see the flaws.

jeroen wrote:

.Jony. wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [

unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.

WHAT?? LOLLOLLOLLOL! You mean it is up for debate if a band played a specific song on a specific date??? You can DEBATE about a song being played?? You can DEBATE about on which date a show was being held??? You can DEBATE about wether Freddie was male or female???? And you dare tell total strangers to piss off? HAHAHAHA! Who's the idiot?! Welcome to Queenzone, whoever you are! You're a moron, so I'm sure you'll fit in!

jeroen wrote: if you know so much about Queen's concert history as you claim, so much in fact that you can pick out the errors by sight, then why do you read the book in the first place?
------>So you only read books to learn something you don't know yet? ********obviously you were looking for exact concert setlists for whatever strange reason. if you know all them, as you seem to be able to pick out all the errors, why do you still read the book?
You never read for fun? ***of course. most of the time. that's what I just said in my previous post. you on the contrary have a need for exact information about running orders of tracks played in long forgotten gigs. hardly a fun hobby (but that's just me)
You never read about stuff you already know in hope to find a little bit or maybe even more of what you did NOT yet know? *******if I already know it, there is nothing I can read that I don't know. make up your mind.
You don't buy books for collectiings-sake. ********for collecting sake? what the hell has that to do with anything? if you bought the book for collecting sake, then it doesn't matter what's written in the book.
Bullshit remark!
where did I say that I didn't notice the errors? nowhere. I don't care about those minor flaws. I don't give a flying fuck about what the fifth track was that they played at their first hammersmith concert.
----->If information is presented as a fact you SHOULD care about flaws.***well I don't. there are more important things in life than to worry about setlists. geez, get a life
Another bullshit remark.
I want to know the anecdotes, I want to read something about the general atmosphere of those years.
------>Then read another book! As it began for instance or whatever biography. QUEEN LIVE BY GREG BROOKS IS A CONCERTOGRAPHY AND NOT A BIOGRAPHY.*****another argument that's missing the point. who gives a fuck if the book is a concertography. it's a book about Queen. that's enough information for the "hardcore" Queen fan to buy the book. it's not like if the book was called a biography that true Queen fans would say "pah, I don't like biographys, I'll skip this one". it's not like I'm focussing on concertographies and steer clear around biographies. when I buy those nooks the primary reason is that it's a book about Queen. I don't expect to turn into a superman by reading these books, and nothing more should be expected from it than it being a "book about Queen". it will save you a lot of worries, my critical friend.
You guessed it: another bullshit remark.
yeah, I'm a happy fan that's thankfull for what he has. I don't ask for more anyway. the things they present us more than satisfy me. I'm not such a bitter, jealous brat like most of you here.
----->Neither am I - and I am not saying anything about Greg's book through my remarks here. I'm just writing this to point out that your talking bullshit.********just to point out that I'm talking bullshit? is that another one of your hobbies, apart from this obsessive need for exact setlists?
well, I don't think even brian knows all the setlists by head, of all concerts he ever played. if he does, then the fella has the brian of five einsteins put together. no one knows exactly, and you certainly not.
--->NO BODY knows everything by heart. Does one need to? NO! Books like this are not written 'by heart' they are written by knowledge and research. People have spent years and years INVESTIGATING what these shows were like. By listening to all possible recordings, reports, setlists EVERYTHING, combining them and researching (THAT's where the knowledge about setlists comes from not from memory silly goose - obviously you are new to the term 'bootleg'?*****obviously some of these reports were wrong. the reporters are to blame, not greg.
if greg made a mistake, it's because his source was wrong. he can only write what various sources tell. some s

Queen Archivist wrote: To YourValentine, who wrote... The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal). Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous. If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal? You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose. And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me. Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.

Queen Archivist wrote: I noticed for example that YourValentine - a respected QZ-er, I know that, but even so you must be open to the possibility that she too dislikes me and therefore that clearly governs and dominates her 'review' of anything I do - YV reviewd my Freddie book with such blatant dislike of me dictating every word, that it was impossible to see behond anything else. That should not be the case. She should have offered a detached review regardless of disliking me. She concluded with 'This book is crap'. Now, would she have said that about ANY ONE ELSE at all on QZ? No. Of course not. If she were 'reviewing' another book, she would be constructive. She would cite the bad AND the good within it, as any impartial person would. You can all see that as clear as day, but why can't any of you openly challenge her on this? So, she's a great friend of yours!!! So what. You can still be in opposition with her from time to time. Your friendship will endure even if you dare to go public with an opposing pinion in preference to a fair and honest approach. That she was so totally biassed only show that the review cannot be remotely fair or balanced.

Queen Archivist wrote: To YourValentine, who wrote... The review of your book was my honest opinion and still is. I did not call it crap, I think I called it useless. I did not get personal (while you always get personal). Calling my book useless is personal. Of course it is. Don't be so bloody ridiculous. If I say that your dress sense is useless, or that your work is useless (rather than something more subtle or polite or couteous), how is that NOT personal? You say silly things like that and wonder why you get up my nose. And the fact that you were in the same room as me in Holland last weekend, but did not come and say hello, or attempt any conversation at all, says more about you than me. Calling sdomeone's work USELESS (whether they care or not) IS personal. An idiot would recognise that plain fact.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: What does Brian have to do with this? He wasn't the one writing the book. As for the setlists, if Greg wasn't completely sure of one, then he should have left the concert blank. The only thing that can prove what a setlist was is a recording; since most recordings are bootlegs made from the audience, one needs to listen carefully to see if there are any cuts in the recording. For the US ADATR tour, in an effort to make it appear as if he knows more setlists than anyone else, Greg copied and pasted the setlist from an incomplete bootleg (missing Now I'm Here) to almost every other show of the tour, and shifted around the encores of a few shows, just to make them look a bit different from night to night. This is NOT research. It is called 100% pure grade A bullshit. If he is an archivist, then this post was written by a great comedian.

YourValentine wrote: I am always polite. I never call people twat, idiots and other names.

.Jony. wrote: don't rely on the bootlegs all the time if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg ok, you get my drift

there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

.Jony. wrote: don't rely on the bootlegs all the time if you would, than you would have to take as a fact that freddie mercury is alive, cos it's written on some bootleg ok, you get my drift

No, I don't. In fact, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.******what a coincidence. guess what the stupidest thing is that I have read so far.

there are other issues. sometimes a whole concert has been given the wrong name, simply because the bootlegger was an idiot or just a fraud

Not at all. Anyone who knows enough about Queen concerts can listen carefully to a recording and know what date it's from, based on Freddie addressing a particular city, and the setlist. And then you listen carefully for any cuts or changes in the sound quality to be sure that it's all from the same date. If it's an incomplete recording, then we trust that the date given is true, because Queen generally played the same setlist throughout a tour. You really have no clue how much effort some collectors put into listening to the bootlegs to understand Queen as an evolving live band over the years. A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert. I own recordings of almost half of the concerts Queen played over their career. Official releases can be and have been altered by the band before being release. Bootlegs are made by fans in the audience, and in most cases, they are not altered. Any decent set of ears can hear a cut, cross-fade, etc. Therefore a bootleg is the best way to know what happened on a particular date.************ that is at best contradicting. first you say "A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert" then you basically dismiss this by adding "in most cases, they are not altered", admitting that some bootlegs ARE altered. but there is more in your post that doesn't even begin to make sense. you make it sound like freddie always adresses the venue date and setlist, like if he knew that someone sometime would wade through all the bootlegs and try to figure out what date and venue it was. laughable. I'm sure greg will be delighted to hear that. i'm sure that will be new to him.

.Jony. wrote: first you say "A bootleg is the only thing that can prove exactly what happened at a concert" then you basically dismiss this by adding "in most cases, they are not altered", admitting that some bootlegs ARE altered.

but there is more in your post that doesn't even begin to make sense. you make it sound like freddie always adresses the venue date and setlist, like if he knew that someone sometime would wade through all the bootlegs and try to figure out what date and venue it was. laughable. I'm sure greg will be delighted to hear that. i'm sure that will be new to him.

jeroen wrote: Ah, Bob come on - this kid will not understand. Don't bother.