| Cwazy little thing 28.10.2006 07:55 |
Greg Brooks; Having mostly stayed out of the running battles with you on here, and tried to be fair when I did say anything, and also not having the time, or inclination to come on here often enough to keep up with them, lol, I wondered if I could ask you a genuine question, and if you might answer it? Could we start a thread, perhaps even this thread, and have those of us with genuine questions regarding things in the archives, or questions about the releases planned/in production answered to the best of your ability as Queen Archivist? If the questions were to remain polite, and thanks given for your responses, and if you ignored anyone who was stupid enough to waste the oppurtunity and try to insult you for no reason etc, and answered honestly to your knowledge, or gave an explanation if you were unable to do so, couldnt it work? I harbour no negative feelings towards you, or any other regular posters on here, and am simply a Queen fan who wishes to expand his knowledge, and get excited about future releases. I understand you are under no obligation to reveal anything at all, but I thought it could be nice to try, and will think no less of you if you refuse. You are in a position none of us can come close to - youre on the inside, and have official information available to you, and there would be no harm in sharing it with genuine fans such as many on QZ. How about it? Please? Matt |
| Rick 28.10.2006 08:37 |
Asking questions to Greg, is like asking questions to a tree. |
| kirkpatrickuk 28.10.2006 09:35 |
Without meaning to sound rude, if the Queen Archivist is really Greg Brooks, then yes this would be great. I agree, I think we all just want to expand our knowledge of Queen without offence to anyone. I've learnt so much on this site and think that we should all continue to assist with it's success. |
| .Jony. 28.10.2006 10:06 |
it won't happen the things you bastards said to him are enough to turn anyone off |
| Sergei. 28.10.2006 16:44 |
<font color=blue>Rick wrote: Asking questions to Greg, is like asking questions to a tree.Unfortunately, a tree with access to Queen's Archives... |
| John S Stuart 28.10.2006 17:05 |
Cwazy little thing: I totally agree with you. I can think of no other worthwhile project than to have the official Queen archivist produce a positive contribution to the biggest independent Queen fan-site on the planet. We have all offered Greg the metaphorical olive branch time, after time, after time. We have offered both respect and hospitality, and even provided special threads and specific discussions for him to contribute to. All the casual browser need do, is to punch his alias into the above search button to see that this is indeed so. It is all very sad really. For a man with potentially so much to offer, all he has succeeded in doing, is spam the board, and marginalise (UK spelling) himself from the greater Queenzone community. As his 15 minutes rapidly diminishes, so too does his clout and authority. Perhaps one day, when his time is over, then conceivably we may find that he NEEDS an audience, more than an audience need him. But until that time, I guess we must suffer his pretentious sanctimonious outbursts, and the intolerable fawning of his sycophantic groupies. |
| masterstroke_84 28.10.2006 17:29 |
i wish Brian or Roger fired him xD |
| Queen Archivist 28.10.2006 19:56 |
Hello Matt, Your question/suggestion is a fair one. I'll do my best to offer an appropriate response. It will antagonise certain QZ-ers, but that's the normal and predictable reality I'm afraid. No matter how nicely or considered I say the following things, it will not be sufficient or acceptable to some. That's the way it is. In principal I don't mind answering questions about Queen and the archive - though my scope is necessarily limited. People always forget that it's okay for an accountant in a London firm, for example, or John Prescott's Personal Assistant, or a legal secretary working in Cambridge, etc etc, to respect company confidences and privileged information, and to be discret and to generally keep certain company data which they are privy to, to themselves, but when I do that Queen fans, especially on QZ, get very arsy and angry. That's always been strange to me; that adults cannot come to terms with this. Just like everyone who works for a successful company - be it MacDonalds, EMI, HMV, Boots, Queen Productions or Toys R Us - I too have to keep things to myself. My position is one of great trust and I enjoy and respect that side of it. I have to try and strike a happy medium between respecting Queen's wishes, and playing 'middle man' to the fans (and I am a great fan too, keep in mind). Jim Beach once said to me that I could, indeed should, talk about the Queen archive and out-take recordings, etc, but in a limited, reasonable and sensitive way, and only to inspire web chat and general interest. You can see the logic of this. At the time, 1997, there was serious talk of a Queen anthology collection and our little team was buzzing with ideas and notes and suggestions to that end. Ultimately, that box did not happen due to decisions made by the band which are no business of mine. Like everyone else, I was disappointed, but that's life, and that is my job too, in this instance. We all have to contend with such things in our work; I'm no different. I just got into the next task asked of me, and then the next, and so on. And then the Freddie box project emerged and that was a fascinating journey. It was a kind of consolation for the shelved Queen box/s. I put my heart and sould into that - as did Justin, Richard, Kris, Jim, etc. As part of semi-promtion for that box, in 1999, Jim said to answer questions with fans where I could, raise profile and interest, get people talking about it and, as it were, help in creating a stir. So... I did all those things, including attending the Dutch convention of 1999 or 2000, and the UK one, etc, and I started playing rarities (ok'd by JB and Q) and then the questions started pouring in. Yes it is true that my way of dealing with hundreds of questions at a time was often to be sarcastic or funny or whatever, but that is ME, that is MY personality. That was my way of dealing with it. I recall Pete Malandrone and I going on to certain sites, like QZ, and covertly creating "a stir". This we did by answering serious questions and by starting proper threads, but, yes, also by starting bogus threads and rumours... to start tongues wagging, cause a mysterious stir and flurry of activity, increase profile. Just in good fun. And it worked. A MASSIVE volume of Freddie threads thrived and everyone was talking about various healthy topics. This is how I originally came to QZ. The rest is history. I view all that as legitimite and reasonable raising of profile... using our initiative to promote the FM box and general discussion. Nothing more or less. Matt... I feel that since then: 1998-2006, I have more or less said everything, said it all, told all that I can. Given alI the Queenonline web questionaire pages, and various other web sites, and the QFC appearances, etc, this past 9 years, I reckon I have answered 2,000 questions or more since - though probably only 3-400 different ones - because the same questions emerge all the time. Please be aware t |
| John S Stuart 28.10.2006 20:15 |
Greg: Let me be the first to thank you for that considered and insightful piece of information. As you see, there is no need to shout, curse, or belittle anyone to communicate such a simple explanation. To quote Bananarama: It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it, And that's what gets results... |
| Queen Archivist 28.10.2006 20:19 |
I WOULD LIKE TO REPLY TO JOHN STUART'S COMMENTS... IN CAPITAL LETTERS, JUST SO THE DISTINCTION IS CLEAR TO ALL.... ****** Cwazy little thing: I totally agree with you. I can think of no other worthwhile project than to have the official Queen archivist produce a positive contribution to the biggest independent Queen fan-site on the planet. FAIR COMMENT JOHN. I HAVE (ABOVE) JUST TAKEN THE TIME TO EXPLAIN MY POSITION. I HOPE IT MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL.. LATELY YOU HAVE A VERY BIASSED OPINION OF ME. YOU SEEM BITTER LATELY AND THIS CREEPS INTO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT ME. I'VE BEEN HONEST AND FAIR AND CANDID. HOPE YOU CAN TRY TO BE THE SAME. We have all offered Greg the metaphorical olive branch time, after time, after time. NOT REALLY TRUE, JOHN, ON BALANCE. I DO NOT GET A FAIR HEARING ON QZ, OR A FRIENDLY OLIVE BRANCH. I HAVE HAD ACTUAL (THOUGH LAUGHABLE) DEATH THREADS. I DO NOT GET A FAIR HEARING ON QZ, NEVER HAVE, AS MANY QZ-ERS HAVE ACTUALLY ADMITTED TO. We have offered both respect and hospitality, and even provided special threads and specific discussions for him to contribute to. TRUE-ISH. BUT IF YOU REVIEW THEM NOW YOU WILL FIND ALL KINDS OF NASTINESS AND ABUSE IN THERE (MUCH OF IT FROM YOU).... COMMENTS ABOUT HOW MY POOR WIFE MUST SUFFER, EVEN THOUGH MY LONG TERM GIRLFRIEND AND I ARE NOT MARRIED. JOHN, YOU MAKE IT SOUND ALL NICE AND COZY, BUT ACTUALLY THE THREADS TO WHICH YOU REFER ARE SO OFTEM LOADED WITH NASTINESS. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE, PLEASE DON'T ARGUE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND KEEP IT FACTUAL. I WISH IT WERE AS ROSIE AND LOVELY AS YOU DESCRIBE. IT IS NOT, AND YOU KNOW IT. All the casual browser need do, is to punch his alias into the above search button to see that this is indeed so. YOU WILL FIND UNLIMITED NASTINESS TOWARDS ME. I CAN LIVE WITH IT, DON'T GET ME WRONG. IT'S LIKE WATER OFF A DUCK'S BACK. BUT DON'T SAY IT ISN'T SO BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CLEARLY DAFT. It is all very sad really. IT'S LIFE JOHN. SOMETIMES IT GOES THAT WAY. IT GOES THAT WAY MORE OFTEN THAN NOT ON QZ. For a man with potentially so much to offer, all he has succeeded in doing, is spam the board, and marginalise (UK spelling) himself from the greater Queenzone community. THIS IS TRUE. BUT YOU SEEM TO WANT TO PAINT THE PICTURE THAT IT'S 100% MY FAULT. NOT FAIR. NOT ACCURATE. PLEASE BE FAIR. BE ACCURATE. SHOW SOME INTEGRITY IN HOW YOU REPORT THESE THINGS. OK. As his 15 minutes rapidly diminishes, CHILDISH. UNNECESSARY. so too does his clout and authority. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CLOUT OR AUTHORITY. THAT IS MERELY HOW YOU PERCEIVE IT. THAT'S PARTLY WHY I REGARD YOU AS, WITH RESPECT, A LITTLE 'STRANGE'. I DON'T SEE WHY YOU AND SOME OTHERS THINK THAT WAY YOURVALENTINE DOES NOT THINK I HAVE 'CLOUT' OR 'AUTHORITY', SHE IS CORRECT, SO WHY DO YOU? I NEITHER HAVE IT OR WANT IT. Perhaps one day, when his time is over, then conceivably we may find that he NEEDS an audience, more than an audience need him. JOHN, THIS IS SILLY AND UNNECESSARILY ANTAGONISTIC. ANOTHER REASON WHY WE TRY TO AVOID YOU... AND WHY THE INVITATIONS STOPPED. But until that time, I guess we must suffer his pretentious sanctimonious outbursts, YOU ARE RESENTFUL JOHN. IT SHOWS. EVERYONE CAN SEE IT. and the intolerable fawning of his sycophantic groupies. YOU DON'T LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME, SEE MY POINT, UNDERSTAND MY PERSPECTIVE, IN CONFLICT TO YOURS - AND SO YOU RESORT TO DEFINING THEM AS "fawning sycophantic groupies" THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION JOHN. JUST BECAUSE IT DIFFERES FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW DOES NOT MAKE THEM "fawning sycophantic groupies" JOHN... SAY SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE AND USEFUL AND INTELLIGENT, LIKE MATT DID, AND I WILL RESPOND. YOU ARE SOUNDING BITTER ALL OF A SUDDEN, WITH YOUR 'intolerable fawning of his sycophantic groupies' TYPE OF OUTBURST. WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH YOU LATELY? WHY SO CONFRONTATIONAL AND VINDICTIVE, YOU INS |
| John S Stuart 28.10.2006 20:25 |
Greg:
John S Stuart wrote: I genuinely wish you well in both your chosen career and in the future, and hope that fate is good to you and yours. John S Stuart wrote: ...I send you nothing but my best wishes, and hope that someday you may find half the peace of mind or happiness I enjoy.Strange as it seems, I hold no ill-will or animosity against you – or anyone else in here for that matter. Life really is far too short, and I respect myself too much to descend down into some sort of mud-fight. If you see me as bitter, then so be it, I am not willing to expend any of my positive energies in trying to convince otherwise - but that is your loss, not mine. However I do suggest you remove those prejudice coloured spectacles. Life is so much clearer without them. Again, I send my cordial best wishes, and I will let my record of good conduct stand for itself. |
| Queen Archivist 28.10.2006 20:40 |
John, you have presented (above) two nice comments about me... in order to make you seem like a lovely bloke. But what you have not also presented are the HUNDREDS od slag offs, insults, nastiness, bitterness, envy-driven snipes and innumerable put downs. You said you were gonna "rest your case". Please do. You keep coming back with more one-sided silliness. ANYWAY... lots of QZ-ers will know very well that your selective 2 nice comments are untypical, uncommon, unusual, and that digs and snipes and indirect insults are much more typical and normal from you. They're not as stupid as you think they are matey. |
| newcastle 86 28.10.2006 21:16 |
my god your really comparing your work with THE BEATLES. Gregg im sorry but all of your work, good or bad as it maybe does not compare with ALL of our Queens heros |
| arkham 28.10.2006 21:37 |
Greg, I don't remember, EVER replying to any topic on Queenzone. I may have done so before, but the fact that I don't remember makes this post even more important. I have read many of your previous posts, your fights with other posters, and (if I may say so without offending you) your rants. But, this is the first time that I've ever been touched by one of your replies. Your post was filled with such feeling and honesty. It is a post that, I think, should've been made a long time ago (though, in many ways, I can understand why it wasn't). Now, I don't want to play the "blame game", because it would just descend into pettiness on both sides. But, I would (humbly) suggest that everyone should use this as a starting point for all future discussions - in both style and tone. That's my input. I apologise if I've stepped on anyone's shoes. |
| arkham 28.10.2006 21:39 |
Hmmm, somehow I think I may have been wrong. |
| Adam Baboolal 28.10.2006 21:47 |
I'm glad to read such a wonderfully direct reply from the QA. And I hope this shuts up the people who wish to cause trouble and make snidey remarks against Greg. Even when some have tried to get something good going, there have been people jumping in to say sad things like, "you suck" or other junk. It's like this girl on youtube that posts a blog and constantly gets horrible remarks thrown at her when, she's said or done nothing wrong at all! And to be honest, over the last year or so, QZ has definitely become more like that. That saddens me as I really like QZ because it has so much to offer and the idiots that come out of the woodwork mess things up. I think it's time to leave the bad-mouthing in the past. Adam. |
| TRS-Romania 29.10.2006 02:58 |
I agree with Adam. Greg's response was a very clear and well balanced one. Of course he stirred things up, and got to see the bad sides of many Queen fans (including past comments I made)... So I gues Greg's response in this thread should be the starting point for all of us to a more mature discussion in the future. I am open for that... Stefan |
| Queen Archivist 29.10.2006 05:55 |
Good Lord! Sensible, calm, mature, non-aggressive constructive comment on QZ, in a thread relating to Queen Archivist. I am genuinely taken aback. Keep it coming. It's refreshing and productive. |
| Queen Archivist 29.10.2006 06:16 |
Arkham... Hmmm, somehow I think I may have been wrong. GB: What might you have been wrong about? Do please elaborate. The floor is yours.... |
| Queen Archivist 29.10.2006 06:38 |
In the thread entitled 'Reply To Greg', Cwazy Little Thing (Matt) raised a good point which I responded to in detail. But, I keep seeing, in threads all over this site, people saying "Greg will never do this or that now, not any more" or "Greg gets such a slating here that he won't bother to answer serious questions, and I don't blame him" etc. Anyway... I addressed this issue and I'd like to paste it up here as an isolated thread so that ALL Qz-ers who are interested (and there's a lot of them spread throughout copious threads) can understand my position. Those of you who dislike me, and whom have no interest, just ignore this lengthy posting. It's as simple as that. You can move on to another more interesting posting and not waste your time, or mine, or that of the fans who have since expressed thanks and/or constructive comment about this (on Matt's thread) But here it is for those who want to understand where I stand, and how we reached the current situation. Thanks again to Matt for a sensible, calm and greatly refreshing attitude and suggestion/request. I genuinely appreciate it.... *************************** here is what I wrote yesterday.... SEE BELOW |
| Queen Archivist 29.10.2006 06:41 |
Sorry, I've just pasted that in the wrong place |
| arkham 29.10.2006 07:42 |
GB: What might you have been wrong about? Do please elaborate. The floor is yours.... --- My apologies, I misread one of the posts. Please ignore that one. |
| Leaky Luke 29.10.2006 09:04 |
Dear Greg, Can you tell me which demos of Queen II have already been found so far? As this seems a never ending discussion, I don't care what collectors have, I'm just interested in the material that is found in the archives. With regards The Asassinator |
| Jjeroen 29.10.2006 10:23 |
Well, he played March of the Black Queen, Nevermore, Funny How Love is (several takes of March and Funny) at conventions, so those are. But sure, Greg knows if there are even more. |
| Adam Baboolal 29.10.2006 13:40 |
The Asassinator wrote: Dear Greg, Can you tell me which demos of Queen II have already been found so far? As this seems a never ending discussion, I don't care what collectors have, I'm just interested in the material that is found in the archives. With regards The AsassinatorMaybe you should re-read the post by Greg that says you SHOULDN'T go asking for these things... |
| Cwazy little thing 29.10.2006 14:04 |
Thanks for a genuine and honest answer Greg. Its a good enough response for me, and I can appreciate that answering the same questions repeatedly grows tiresome. Im almost certain there is tonnes of information out there already on the net which would be asked of you, and of course - its that illusive 15% that we all really want to know. I hope when the time comes you'll have plenty to share with us, and that the band dont keep us waiting too long! Its the shelved box sets which I imagine hold most excitement for those on this site, and I hope its only a matter of time before you get to do a similar job as you did on the Freddie box - which by all accounts was great (sadly I cant afford to add it to my collection, god knows what kind of fan that makes me sound like, but at the time of its release I was but a lad, and my parents decided the smaller 3cd release was the way to go for Christmas, and Ive never had the money to make it worth buying some of the same stuff again). Anyway, enough ramblings, thanks again for your response - I think thats all some people needed to hear, and it clears up the postition vastly. Im glad I could add something useful to all this chaos, Cheers, Matt |
| Queen Archivist 29.10.2006 15:57 |
Hey Matt, It is sad to hear that any genuine fan, such as you, cannot afford tobuy the Freddie box. £100 is a significant amount and that aspect puts it out of reach of some people. I hate that. I honestly think, even though it's 5-6 years on, that it's still definitely worth buying. Ask for it for Xmas maybe. It contains magical Freddie recordings. You'll love it. You won't regret it. |
| The Real Wizard 29.10.2006 19:09 |
Greg, Your first post in this topic was pretty refreshing. With all that in mind, I have a question for you: Since you've openly acknowledged that you cannot reveal much of what's hidden in the Queen archives, I have to ask, why then did you bother to do the second Queen Live book? If you can't reveal much, then the book is therefore very incomplete, especially with regards to which recordings exist and which don't. |
| Cwazy little thing 29.10.2006 19:27 |
I may well Greg - since I started at university its been an issue of only occasional small purchases such as cd's or Dvd's, £100 is beyond anything I can justify, and before that I was lucky to have that much in my account (god bless the student loan). But with my official cd and Dvd collection otherwise pretty much complete its something Ive always intended to buy, and I'll certainly get it when I can, along with whatever comes next from the Queen vaults! I suppose you'll have a better idea of what that is than me though, hehe. Matt |
| Queen Archivist 29.10.2006 19:38 |
Sir GH, who wrote.... Greg, I was really happy and refreshed to read your first post in this topic. With all that in mind, I have a question for you: Since you've openly acknowledged that you cannot reveal much of what's hidden in the Queen archives, I have to ask, why then did you bother to do the second Queen Live book? If you can't reveal much, then the book is therefore very incomplete, especially with regards to which recordings exist and which don't. ***** GB: This paragraph makes little sense, as you have linked two completely unrelated topics; my Queen Live book 2nd edition, and the Queen out-takes. It's baffling, but anyway... attempting to separate the two unrelated entities... In fact, I, Greg Brooks DID NOT decide to do the 2nd edition. The Editor of the publishing house did. They simply reformatted the entire book. I had no idea it was happening until it went to press. However, when that 2nd edition sold 5,000 copies, surprisingly quickly (don't ask me why, I was baffled too), they asked if I wanted to make any changes. I said yes, MANY, and then submitted them... with 40-odd appropriate new credits for those who helped... but then the Editor said it was too much, as explained in detail on other threads, so all those corrections STILL remain unpublished - much to my regret. As I said, GH, your comment... 'Since you've openly acknowledged that you cannot reveal much of what's hidden in the Queen archives, I have to ask, why then did you bother to do the second Queen Live book?' makes no sense, so I cannot answer it. My Queen Live book has NOTHING to do with archives, is not remotely linked to what's hidden in the Queen archives. |
| Smitty 29.10.2006 19:53 |
-edit- |
| The Real Wizard 30.10.2006 01:16 |
Queen Archivist wrote: My Queen Live book has NOTHING to do with archives, is not remotely linked to what's hidden in the Queen archives.If that's true, then what was the source for the transcriptions of stage banter for the 12-22-77 and 1979 concerts? |
| Oberon 31.10.2006 17:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:i guess what he means is that the live recordings QPL have in the archives are not compromised by his book (i.e the fact that a live gig took place is a matter of public record of sorts, while the recording of that gig is not), and neither are the studio recordings.Queen Archivist wrote: My Queen Live book has NOTHING to do with archives, is not remotely linked to what's hidden in the Queen archives.If that's true, then what was the source for the transcriptions of stage banter for the 12-22-77 and 1979 concerts? That is the only inference I can take from his response. |