QueenZone discussion #961194

Saif wrote: I'm not going to comment on the e-mail, I'll let you keep it between Brian and yourself. But does Brian like, selectively reply to e-mails or something? Not all of them? I was going to ask him questions about "Too Much Love Will Kill You" and this disorients me...

Sebastian wrote: I post it here in case he doesn't reply. Or if he does, you saw it first on Queenzone (that looks like a commercial, doesn't it?). -------- 12th February 2007 Hi Brian You've showed a nice example of double standards, haven't you? You can't resist slamming journalists you don't even know, yet complain if they say something bad about the musical or any of your mates or your hair or whatever. So you say 'We Will Rock You' is great because it's successful ... yeah, sure ... you know Queen is a brand name, and a very good one (like Coca-Cola), and everything under its label will sell well. It's interesting that now you're comparing success with quality. According to that, 'Queen II' is total pants, 'Hips Don't Lie' is a better song than 'Innuendo', and Vanilla Ice's album 'To The Extreme' is much much much better than 'A Night At The Opera' ... come on! The musical is selling well because your loyal fans would pay to see you and Roger belching. I don't mean that the musical's bad or that nobody likes it in its own way, but to pretend that its longevity is entirely due to its "depth" is ridiculous. I like some of your comments on the soapbox, like the beautiful obituaries you wrote for Maurice Gibb, Michael Kamen and Syd Barrett ... they all show you're a very good writer and a nice bloke all in all. And I agree with your comments on ecology and against smoking, but whenever anyone touches your musical you become as narrow-minded as the "wankers" you offend (or even more). Dr May, if only people who write musicals can criticise musicals, then you should belt up about the press until the day you own a bloody newspaper. Being a music critic is NOT that easy, and it's not as simple as being a frustrated musician. I agree that there are many idiots out there, but some are actually people whose work must be respected, just as much as yours is. And 'We Will Rock You' is conquering the world, you say? Sure, that's because it's had to be closed in several places after just some months ... face it, Dr May, not everybody HAS to love your product. And if you try to re-write history, then you're being just as unfair as those "nasty, grubby, spotty, unusually ignorant 15 year old creep" people. So you think you can stone them ... quite funny, because sadly you're setting yourself up and looking like a sad whiney grumpy ol' tart. Why don't you use your superb creativity and your enviable vocabulary to write some poetic lyrics like 'White Queen' or 'All Dead' instead of insulting people you DON'T know and cowardly hiding behind stereotyped offences ... "spotty" ... "15 year old"? that's just as lame as attacking somebody because of being black or skint... Cheers Bri Seb PS: The word 'blog' exists from 1994, which is long before you started ranting on the soapbox. If you accuse the press of getting facts wrong, you ought to practise what you preach... PS': How can you expect people not to make jokes about your mop-top, if you call them names in the first place? PS'': You're about to turn 60 in some months... don't you think it's time to grow up?

A bunny by any other name... wrote: Ouch. You have some good points, but as to this last piece where the 'journalist' simply stitched together a bunch of quotes from Brian's site and injected his own biased rubbish, I have to disagree. I feel Brian has a right to stoop to the idiot's level to defend himself if he has to.

Bijou In Queens Crown wrote:

Sebastian wrote: ...

I bet you'd never say that to his face. Probably because he'd have you before you can get one worthless sentance out.

Saif wrote: I'm not going to comment on the e-mail, I'll let you keep it between Brian and yourself. But does Brian like, selectively reply to e-mails or something? Not all of them? I was going to ask him questions about "Too Much Love Will Kill You" and this disorients me...

Hadrian wrote:

Saif wrote: I'm not going to comment on the e-mail, I'll let you keep it between Brian and yourself. But does Brian like, selectively reply to e-mails or something? Not all of them? I was going to ask him questions about "Too Much Love Will Kill You" and this disorients me...

He doesn't reply to all...still won't come respond to coming to Chapel Hill and play at UNC.

Erin wrote: Will be very interesting to read the reply...if there is one.

Zebonka12 wrote: Dr. Mop? That's mature. Ha-ha. Way to invalidate a fairly thoughtful e-mail. Anyway; wouldn't the person sifting through Brian's email have to actually show this to him, in order to get a response out of him? They'll probably just go..... 'meh, he'll hate this', and delete the thing. I think.

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: But I don't get it, why do you care if someone who's music you love is grumpy in real life. You don't have to read his soapbox, and even if you want to read it for his musical entries, you can only read those. I also don't like his rants against the press etc. So I just don't read them. Also the topics on which I agree with Brian (like banning smoking in public) I don't like reading. I think it's a bit childish of you to you slag off Brian because he slags off the press and so on. If you don't like it don't read it. Try to spend your time with stuff that matters, your excellent website for example. If Brian thinks he's contributing to his view of a better world let him do it. But I seriously doubt you contribute to a better world by being grumpy at Brian because he puts on his own website what he thinks. Just my 2 eurocents

Bijou In Queens Crown wrote:

Sebastian wrote: I post it here in case he doesn't reply. Or if he does, you saw it first on Queenzone (that looks like a commercial, doesn't it?). -------- 12th February 2007 Hi Brian You've showed a nice example of double standards, haven't you? You can't resist slamming journalists you don't even know, yet complain if they say something bad about the musical or any of your mates or your hair or whatever. So you say 'We Will Rock You' is great because it's successful ... yeah, sure ... you know Queen is a brand name, and a very good one (like Coca-Cola), and everything under its label will sell well. It's interesting that now you're comparing success with quality. According to that, 'Queen II' is total pants, 'Hips Don't Lie' is a better song than 'Innuendo', and Vanilla Ice's album 'To The Extreme' is much much much better than 'A Night At The Opera' ... come on! The musical is selling well because your loyal fans would pay to see you and Roger belching. I don't mean that the musical's bad or that nobody likes it in its own way, but to pretend that its longevity is entirely due to its "depth" is ridiculous. I like some of your comments on the soapbox, like the beautiful obituaries you wrote for Maurice Gibb, Michael Kamen and Syd Barrett ... they all show you're a very good writer and a nice bloke all in all. And I agree with your comments on ecology and against smoking, but whenever anyone touches your musical you become as narrow-minded as the "wankers" you offend (or even more). Dr May, if only people who write musicals can criticise musicals, then you should belt up about the press until the day you own a bloody newspaper. Being a music critic is NOT that easy, and it's not as simple as being a frustrated musician. I agree that there are many idiots out there, but some are actually people whose work must be respected, just as much as yours is. And 'We Will Rock You' is conquering the world, you say? Sure, that's because it's had to be closed in several places after just some months ... face it, Dr May, not everybody HAS to love your product. And if you try to re-write history, then you're being just as unfair as those "nasty, grubby, spotty, unusually ignorant 15 year old creep" people. So you think you can stone them ... quite funny, because sadly you're setting yourself up and looking like a sad whiney grumpy ol' tart. Why don't you use your superb creativity and your enviable vocabulary to write some poetic lyrics like 'White Queen' or 'All Dead' instead of insulting people you DON'T know and cowardly hiding behind stereotyped offences ... "spotty" ... "15 year old"? that's just as lame as attacking somebody because of being black or skint... Cheers Bri Seb PS: The word 'blog' exists from 1994, which is long before you started ranting on the soapbox. If you accuse the press of getting facts wrong, you ought to practise what you preach... PS': How can you expect people not to make jokes about your mop-top, if you call them names in the first place? PS'': You're about to turn 60 in some months... don't you think it's time to grow up?

I bet you'd never say that to his face. Probably because he'd have you before you can get one worthless sentance out.

<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: I Wouldn't be complaining is Bri-man came after me :P good or bad

Sebastian wrote:

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: But I don't get it, why do you care if someone who's music you love is grumpy in real life. You don't have to read his soapbox, and even if you want to read it for his musical entries, you can only read those. I also don't like his rants against the press etc. So I just don't read them. Also the topics on which I agree with Brian (like banning smoking in public) I don't like reading. I think it's a bit childish of you to you slag off Brian because he slags off the press and so on. If you don't like it don't read it. Try to spend your time with stuff that matters, your excellent website for example. If Brian thinks he's contributing to his view of a better world let him do it. But I seriously doubt you contribute to a better world by being grumpy at Brian because he puts on his own website what he thinks. Just my 2 eurocents

True, but then we'd get on an endless chain there... some sort of "I won't read his soapbox, but why can he read the press?". Perhaps Dr Wig "thinks he's contributing to his view of a better world" through that needless series of insults towards journalists. If so, I'm also hoping I may "contribute to my view of a better world" by telling him that he's being hypocritical in the way he's doing so. Does he want to prove them wrong? Then he can do what he does best: music, or lyrics, or astronomy books... he's very skilful at many things so he may concentrate on that instead of slamming the press. Journalists are people too, and just as many musicias are pants, but some are excellent, many reporters are pillocks, but some are dedicated professionals who deserve respect as well. So my mail was "just my 2 pence" ;)

coops wrote: Brian does not open emails, his assistant does, and forwards on to Brian any she may think he would be interested in. I know because Brian has responded to a few of mine in the past. Each time I got an email saying that my letter will be sent to Brian, and that I may or may not get a reply. This letter above will not be forwarder I am sure.

Sebastian wrote: Perhaps Dr Wig "thinks he's contributing to his view of a better world" through that needless series of insults towards journalists. If so, I'm also hoping I may "contribute to my view of a better world" by telling him that he's being hypocritical in the way he's doing so.

Does he want to prove them wrong? Then he can do what he does best: music, or lyrics, or astronomy books... he's very skilful at many things so he may concentrate on that instead of slamming the press.

Journalists are people too, and just as many musicias are pants, but some are excellent, many reporters are pillocks, but some are dedicated professionals who deserve respect as well.

So my mail was "just my 2 pence" ;)

Sebastian wrote: Journalists are people too, and just as many musicias are pants, but some are excellent, many reporters are pillocks, but some are dedicated professionals who deserve respect as well.

coops wrote: Thats coz your special

Sebastian wrote: And btw, I think being a (n honest) critic can be considered a job. Of course many do it just to be nasty, etc ... but I'm not talking about them. Generalising is just as unfair as writing about his rants or his hair.

Sebastian wrote: According to that, Brian's a frustrated journalist.

Bobby_brown wrote: bad review comes with the kind sarcasm that it´s beyound the goal of the criticism.

Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME Bad, dirty business with strange and cruel rules.

Sebastian wrote: I post it here in case he doesn't reply. Or if he does, you saw it first on Queenzone (that looks like a commercial, doesn't it?). -------- 12th February 2007 Hi Brian You've showed a nice example of double standards, haven't you? You can't resist slamming journalists you don't even know, yet complain if they say something bad about the musical or any of your mates or your hair or whatever. So you say 'We Will Rock You' is great because it's successful ... yeah, sure ... you know Queen is a brand name, and a very good one (like Coca-Cola), and everything under its label will sell well. It's interesting that now you're comparing success with quality. According to that, 'Queen II' is total pants, 'Hips Don't Lie' is a better song than 'Innuendo', and Vanilla Ice's album 'To The Extreme' is much much much better than 'A Night At The Opera' ... come on! The musical is selling well because your loyal fans would pay to see you and Roger belching. I don't mean that the musical's bad or that nobody likes it in its own way, but to pretend that its longevity is entirely due to its "depth" is ridiculous. I like some of your comments on the soapbox, like the beautiful obituaries you wrote for Maurice Gibb, Michael Kamen and Syd Barrett ... they all show you're a very good writer and a nice bloke all in all. And I agree with your comments on ecology and against smoking, but whenever anyone touches your musical you become as narrow-minded as the "wankers" you offend (or even more). Dr May, if only people who write musicals can criticise musicals, then you should belt up about the press until the day you own a bloody newspaper. Being a music critic is NOT that easy, and it's not as simple as being a frustrated musician. I agree that there are many idiots out there, but some are actually people whose work must be respected, just as much as yours is. And 'We Will Rock You' is conquering the world, you say? Sure, that's because it's had to be closed in several places after just some months ... face it, Dr May, not everybody HAS to love your product. And if you try to re-write history, then you're being just as unfair as those "nasty, grubby, spotty, unusually ignorant 15 year old creep" people. So you think you can stone them ... quite funny, because sadly you're setting yourself up and looking like a sad whiney grumpy ol' tart. Why don't you use your superb creativity and your enviable vocabulary to write some poetic lyrics like 'White Queen' or 'All Dead' instead of insulting people you DON'T know and cowardly hiding behind stereotyped offences ... "spotty" ... "15 year old"? that's just as lame as attacking somebody because of being black or skint... Cheers Bri Seb PS: The word 'blog' exists from 1994, which is long before you started ranting on the soapbox. If you accuse the press of getting facts wrong, you ought to practise what you preach... PS': How can you expect people not to make jokes about your mop-top, if you call them names in the first place? PS'': You're about to turn 60 in some months... don't you think it's time to grow up?

Sebastian wrote: 50 replies ... this must be a record for any thread started off by me ;) PS: Sadly, it was also the most stupid discussion I've ever started

A very rich bunny wrote: I defended Brian before.. certainly he has the right to say what he wants, but his comment today.. calling people parasites for BUYING HIS BOOK, WAITING IN LINE FOR AN AUTOGRAPH.. then selling on Ebay. What the fuck does that hurt? If someone pays for something and puts forth the effort to get an autograph they have every fucking right to do with it what they want without being called a parasite. Brian signed autographs to promote his book. Nobody forced him to. And I'm sure people had to buy a copy to get it signed. What a bitchy old cunt. I sometimes get the impression that he can't stand it if he doesn't get a piece of every Queen-related sale of anything, whether he's already been paid or not. Maybe he should sell his own god damn autographs thru his site if he wants to compete. Yeah, he has the right to say what he wants, but fans deserve better than hearing such crap from their idols. Thanks for listening.

Bijou In Queens Crown wrote: I bet you'd never say that to his face. Probably because he'd have you before you can get one worthless sentance out.

Bijou In Queens Crown wrote: They were just stupid. And if they were such huge fans of him they would respect what he was about and not kill wildlife. If he had survived the attack would he kill it and all the others? No I don't think so. So there was no excuse for other people to do it.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To get indignant about people making a few bucks of a signature is petty. To get upset about people killing stingrays is ridiculous beyond belief. Probably 99.99% of people go to meet Brian for good reasons, and probably 99.99% of Australians mourned Steve Irwin's death in a dignified manner.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Referring to opening post: Sebastian needs to get over himself. There are limits to musical free-thinking, and I don't tend to side with the one who thinks ABBA is the best thing that happened to the world here.

Zebonka12 wrote: I'm sure if you hadn't read Brian's 'shit' that we wouldn't be in this thread...

Sebastian wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: I'm sure if you hadn't read Brian's 'shit' that we wouldn't be in this thread...

The thing is I don't consider that 'shit'. I think Brian's a very intelligent bloke whose opinions may influence loads of people, and I think his rants about the press are not only below his level, but quite unfair as well. So I deserve to try and tell him he looks stupid by complaining that much, and that he's becoming as narrow-minded as those journalists he attacks. Mike Hunt seems to think that most of what I say is bollocks, and that my website is pants, thus it's a waste of his time (and mine) for him to browse through it. It's a different situation.

Zebonka12 wrote: "I'd like to see you do any better, hmph" Who was that directed to??!! :\