| bigV 07.03.2007 07:53 |
This is from another topic:
Brimon wrote: None, my reason for putting it as my worst tour is because I believe they should never have played there.What are your thoughts, folks? Do you think that it was a mistake for Queen to go there? My personal view (it should be noted that I've been a Queen fan since I was 12 and I have lived in South Africa) is the same as the band's. They didn't go there to be political - they went there to entertain people. More importantly, they played to mixed audiences, which in 1984 in South Africa was unheard of. I believe that their concerts in Sun City did more good than harm to the struggle in South Africa and more harm than good to the band itself. V. |
| Deacon Fan 07.03.2007 08:05 |
Mistake? Yes. Wrong? No. Different countries have their own particular struggles at times. I don't believe it's up to bands to determine where they should and shouldn't play, for politcal reasons. I don't believe in punishing the people of a country for their governmental policies.. if that were the case, the U.S. could be boycotted by foreign bands for the crap that Bush has pulled.. sending young people off to die for no good reason. Since it was the 'in' thing to boycott South Africa at the time, it was a mistake for their image, yeah. But I admire them in a way for it too. |
| Dan C. 07.03.2007 09:14 |
I agree with both of you. It's always nice when someone else explains yourself for you. ;) |
| YourValentine 07.03.2007 09:37 |
I think they were very ill advised to play there. Not only did they violate an UN boycott and the regulations of the British Music Union - they actually supported the Apartheid system - a fact that was fiercely criticized by ANC representatives. Sun City was an all-white place, it was expensive and black people could not afford to go there. It was in the middle of an incredibly poor environment and it was cynical to claim that music crosses all borders - the Apartheid borders could not be crossed, they had to be torn down. Things did not look much nicer when Freddie Mercury said in public that they did it for the money. On the other hand it's very debatable if artists should be forced to boycott a country. It's hypocritical to hold artists responsible for the lack of determination of the UN when economical interests were still valued higher than Human Rights. It was also right when Brian May said that they could not play in many countries if they only played in countries whose government they approved of. To sum it up - it was not the smartest move and it alienated many fans but it was not really fair to create such a dilemma for the group, either. Both Brian and Roger later said in hindsight they would not do it again and apparently Nelson Mandela has no problem with them, so it's time to bury the issue. |
| bigV 07.03.2007 09:41 |
For the record: At the time Sun City was technically OUTSIDE South Africa. So Queen did not in effect violate the embargo. But that's just splitting hairs, innit? V. |
| YourValentine 07.03.2007 10:07 |
It was even worse! Let me quote a UN press release: "Performances in bantustans - which are recognized by no country and which are the mechanisms to disposses the African people of their rights - is a particularly serious affront to the black people and their liberation movement." Read the whole press release here link It was issued before Queen went there |
| Mr. Scully 07.03.2007 18:49 |
I don't care that they played in South Africa, it's no big deal for me. They played in communistic Hungary too. Music shouldn't be mixed with politics. Nowadays bands play in China or Cuba and nobody cares anymore. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 07.03.2007 19:14 |
I don't find that fact particularly encouraging. And I wish they hadn't played Sun City. |
| bigV 08.03.2007 06:21 |
Mr. Scully wrote: I don't care that they played in South Africa, it's no big deal for me. They played in communistic Hungary too. Music shouldn't be mixed with politics. Nowadays bands play in China or Cuba and nobody cares anymore.Here, here! Music in the 80's and early 90's became WAY too political. You had Pink Floyd writing songs about the Falklands War and Leonid Brezhnev, U2 were writing about atomic boms and Metallica wrote "One" about the consequences of modern warfare. Music is a form of art and art should be enjoyed by everyone. I said it before and I'll say it again: Queen did not go to South Africa to oppose or side with the apartheid government. They went there to entertain people. And from what I've been told by people who attended the show, it was very entertaining indeed. V. |
| YourValentine 08.03.2007 06:55 |
"I said it before and I'll say it again: Queen did not go to South Africa to oppose or side with the apartheid government." This is absolutely true. Nobody says Queen wanted to promote the apartheid system intentionally. However, we all have to consider the consequences of what we do and a huge band like Queen should have taken the environment of that place into consideration. The Sun City concerts were very harmful for the image of the band- they looked like uncaring, money grabbing cynics at the time. It was a very bad career decision, no matter what the intention of the band members was. Up to this very day every Queen critic brings up Sun City - they made themselves an easy target for any hypocritical closet racist who could point at Queen and blame them for their cooperation with the system. |
| radio_what's_new 08.03.2007 07:59 |
YourValentine wrote: "I said it before and I'll say it again: Queen did not go to South Africa to oppose or side with the apartheid government." This is absolutely true. Nobody says Queen wanted to promote the apartheid system intentionally. However, we all have to consider the consequences of what we do and a huge band like Queen should have taken the environment of that place into consideration. The Sun City concerts were very harmful for the image of the band- they looked like uncaring, money grabbing cynics at the time. It was a very bad career decision, no matter what the intention of the band members was. Up to this very day every Queen critic brings up Sun City - they made themselves an easy target for any hypocritical closet racist who could point at Queen and blame them for their cooperation with the system.A lot of famous artists played at Sun city. Of course it's a bad career decision but we don't need to OVER estimate it. Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions: -Break Free video -Hot Space -Queen Dance tracks -Musical -Pepsi commercial -Under pressure RAH mix -stone cold classics -Rocks -GH 3 -DORO twins -bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one) -John Farnhem -shall I continu? |
| Bob-Plant 08.03.2007 08:02 |
Maybe because I'm so old and was 20 when this all went down, but those who are comparing what happens today to what was happening in South Africa 20 to 25 years ago are missing the point. The U.N. was trying to put political pressure on S. Africa to end apartheid and one of the ways to that was the "cultural boycott". Queen obviously wasn't supporting the racist policies of the South African government, but it defeated the whole purpose of isolating them by going there. Think of it this way; if in 1965 the US government told all musical groups not to play in Mississippi as long as the state continued to have segregration in schools. Then one day the Beatles accepted an offer to play there at a premier, very expensive venue, when EVERY other important band at the time refused. Even if their intentions were good, it would still make them look bad in the eyes of the casual observer, much less those who are very passionate about their politics (i.e. Bono/Little Steven etc.). Freddie's statement, "there's a lot of money to be made", though done in typical Freddie style of having his tongue-in-cheek, didn't help either. As someone stated earlier, Brian & Roger both regret it and have said that in retrospect, they shouldn't have done it-lesson learned. |
| PieterMC 08.03.2007 08:35 |
radio_what's_new wrote: Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions: -Break Free video -Hot Space -Queen Dance tracks -Musical -Pepsi commercial -Under pressure RAH mix -stone cold classics -Rocks -GH 3 -DORO twins -bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one) -John Farnhem -shall I continu?Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City. |
| john bodega 08.03.2007 11:23 |
"You had Pink Floyd writing songs about the Falklands War and Leonid Brezhnev, U2 were writing about atomic boms and Metallica wrote "One" about the consequences of modern warfare. " Well hang on.... part of being an artist is commenting on things that worry us!! If the atom bomb isn't worth singing about, I don't know what is... But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something. |
| radio_what's_new 08.03.2007 15:11 |
PieterMC wrote:Break free meant the end of success on the biggest market on the planet, the USA. Queen 'repaired' sun city with the gain of a whole new young european audience at live aid. The USA was lost forever.radio_what's_new wrote: Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions: -Break Free video -Hot Space -Queen Dance tracks -Musical -Pepsi commercial -Under pressure RAH mix -stone cold classics -Rocks -GH 3 -DORO twins -bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one) -John Farnhem -shall I continu?Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City. Who gives a flying shit about Sun City? Queen didn't contribute to the apartheid regime because of playing there. Same can be said about for example: The Stones weren't contributing to the violation of Human rights in China and Billy Joel wasn't contributing to the communistic regime in former USSR. Rock 'n roll isn't about politics unless you are a wanker named Bono. |
| Bobby_brown 08.03.2007 15:35 |
It was an heroic decision to play there. Nobody approves apartheid, but to say that artists who play there are suporting apartheid sound as an hypocrisy. I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules. As it was proved by their South America tour, if the black community (in case they could) had hired Queen, they would certainly played there too! And before Queen other artists have played there with appartheid. The difference was the UN script making the rule. And these types of rules didn´t weacked the regime at all. Take care |
| beautifulsoup 08.03.2007 18:39 |
Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote: I agree with both of you. It's always nice when someone else explains yourself for you. ;)LOL, I know the feeling! |
| slithybill 08.03.2007 20:20 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Well hang on.... part of being an artist is commenting on things that worry us!! If the atom bomb isn't worth singing about, I don't know what is... But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something.Or go rant on your soapbox. Think there'll be any anti-fox hunting songs on the new album? |
| YourValentine 09.03.2007 04:32 |
"Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?" Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated. "I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules." Wrong. Even Queen had to obey the decisions made by the British Musicians Union. They were lucky that they were not excluded and got away with paying a fine. There was nothing "heroic" in playing Sun City, it was a very unwise decision. |
| bigV 09.03.2007 07:27 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "You had Pink Floyd writing songs about the Falklands War and Leonid Brezhnev, U2 were writing about atomic boms and Metallica wrote "One" about the consequences of modern warfare. " Well hang on.... part of being an artist is commenting on things that worry us!! If the atom bomb isn't worth singing about, I don't know what is... But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something.That's what I meant. Politics is for politicians. It's fine and dandy to write songs about world peace (John Lennon's "Imagine" springs to mind), but once an artist starts naming names in his songs or in interviews then his credibility AS AN ARTIST is compromised. YourValentine wrote: "Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?" Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated. "I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules." Wrong. Even Queen had to obey the decisions made by the British Musicians Union. They were lucky that they were not excluded and got away with paying a fine. There was nothing "heroic" in playing Sun City, it was a very unwise decision.Did it hurt their career? Yes, it did. Did they weigh the pros and cons before they went to play there? I'm sure they did. Did they regret it? I think they regreted the fact that the whole ordeal hurt the band's image, but they never regreted playing to 9 consecutive sold-out nights to a total of 54 000 South Africans. And I KNOW FOR A FACT that the audiences were mixed. Of course you could argue that many black South Africans could not afford to go to these shows, because Sun City was a very expensive, upper class resort, but by the same token I could argue that I couldn't go to more than one concert on the 2005 European tour. I think I've trailed off, but I hope that I've made some kind of sensible remark. V. |
| radio_what's_new 09.03.2007 09:15 |
YourValentine wrote: "Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?" Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.Don't put my words out of the context in which I said them please. When I say I don't give a 'flying shit' about Sun City, I am absolutely not saying that I don't care about the poors in the 3th world. That are two different discussions. The reason that I am saying it (please read my post again and maybe you see the context) is that by playing in a 'wrong' country doesn't mean you are supporting the regime. That's why I don't give a flying shit about queen playing there, because the don't support the regime. Please try to see the big picture: -World Cup Football 1978 Argentina (Germany and a lot of other countries played there, Videla's regime was terrible does the individual football player support the regime? of course not) -Rolling Stones Playing at China. China still is a country with one of the most terrible human rights in history of mankind. (Do the Stones approve the regime by playing there, Of course not) -Billy Joel playing in Former USSR. (Did he support the communistic terror-regime? Of course not) -Dire straits playing in Hungary, (same questions same answers) And these are only a handfull of all the examples one could make. Politic measures and boycots are meant as a pressure tool between countries. If Queen sold weapons, food, oil or whatever to the gouvernment of South Africa I would say, yes you are supporting that terrible regime of the Apartheid. But by playing music to the people suffering from a regime you don't support a gouvernment in a single way. By playing a football match which is exactly the same thing: entertainment you don't support the regime neither. Maybe the timing was bad, that's another story but performing there itself wasn't. |
| YourValentine 09.03.2007 09:49 |
Well, I never said they supported the Apartheid regime intentionally. All the other examples you mentioned do not apply to the specific situation in Sun City in the 80s because there was an international cultural boycott. Maybe you can compare it to the Olympics in Moscow 1980 which was boycotted by many Western countries - no Western athlete from the boycotting nations could go there and if they had ignored the boycott by their sports organisations they would have been totally unable to take part in any other sports event again. This was very tough for athletes who had spent years in preparation for the olympics and I personally thought the boycott was ridiculous because the boycott of one event could not make the invasion of Afghanistan undone. However, the cultural boycott of South Africa could help to end the apartheid system and it was a great hope for the (black) majority in the country. You need a lot of goodwill and turning a blind eye to the situation in the country to defend Queen's Sun City concerts. |
| Raf 09.03.2007 11:40 |
radio_what's_new wrote:What's the point in insulting someone who caused no harm to anyone?PieterMC wrote:Break free meant the end of success on the biggest market on the planet, the USA. Queen 'repaired' sun city with the gain of a whole new young european audience at live aid. The USA was lost forever. Who gives a flying shit about Sun City? Queen didn't contribute to the apartheid regime because of playing there. Same can be said about for example: The Stones weren't contributing to the violation of Human rights in China and Billy Joel wasn't contributing to the communistic regime in former USSR. Rock 'n roll isn't about politics unless you are a wanker named Bono.radio_what's_new wrote: Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions: -Break Free video -Hot Space -Queen Dance tracks -Musical -Pepsi commercial -Under pressure RAH mix -stone cold classics -Rocks -GH 3 -DORO twins -bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one) -John Farnhem -shall I continu?Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City. |
| 7Innuendo7 09.03.2007 13:07 |
Kind of a loaded question, but it doesn't really matter to me that Queen played 'South Africa.' It seems ironic that it was easier for Queen to get gigs in Sun City, than the USA, at the time. Why didn't Capitol step in at this point? With even some showcase gigs like Montreux Golden Rose, rather than a full blown tour? Didn't they feel like protecting their wonderful new investment? I wasn't in the room so it's not my place to say. Brian said "Queen couldn't even get arrested in the States!" -- which was true, given the popularity of the "I Ain't Gonna Play Sun City" single by Little Steven et al, which went Top 40. Good point about the Break Free video -- but again, Elton John and Boy George were very popular at the time -- I still favor the theory that Freddie's personal assistant Paul Prenter had much to do with alienating music industry types. That could be wrong, or just a part of the picture. Bottom line: imho Queen were seen in the US industry as 'politically incorrect' not just for Sun City, but handling the transition from Elektra to Capitol. MTV was gung-ho about the "Radio GaGa" video, yay, but that's about it. I don't think Queen dropping from the US market for years has that much to do with the gay connotations of drag costumes -- <The World According to Garp> was a popular book and movie, <Victor/Victoria> and <Tootsie> are all that. Queen simply altered their musical brand too much imho by making "Hammer to Fall" a later single release --imagine the Headbanger mix & "I Go Crazy" as b-sides to the first single from <The Works>. Even with headlines about Freddie passing, in the USA, it took Wayne & Garth to really bring back that Leroy Brown...schwing! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 09.03.2007 14:20 |
I think they erred in playing Sun City, even though their motives in playing to a mixed audience at a time when that wasn't happening were pure. Just bad optics all around. And for God's sake, does anybody really believe that Paul Prenter pissing off industry types had anything to do with Queen's lack of US success in the 80s? Mel Gibson publicly slandered an entire group of people and had a film out shortly thereafter and will work and makes oodles of money again. People in business have short memories. American audiences never took to Queen's keyboard heavy, pop stuff, and Capitol had a hard time promoting a band where it seemed like the guitarist was no longer in the band commercially. If Queen wrote and recorded Bohemain Rhapsody in 1985, would anyone give a fuck about one of Freddie's handlers "alleged" treatment of industry people? Not bloody likely. They'd be lining up to get their share of the cash. |
| Bobby_brown 09.03.2007 19:56 |
YourValentine wrote: Well, I never said they supported the Apartheid regime intentionally. All the other examples you mentioned do not apply to the specific situation in Sun City in the 80s because there was an international cultural boycott.But that´s the point! The only reason South Africa was the only one having a cultural boicot was because the racist situation. As mentioned before, there were other countries with much worse conditions wich never got that culture boicot. They only boicoted South Africa because of the shame of the past. As you know, many European countries in the past have colonized African countries and not treated them so well. You know, many countries like to wave the antiracist flag, but if you only knew what´s going on in Africa and who sponsors the wars you´d be surprised at the Hypocrisy of Western countries and UN. When i say that Queen´s decision was heroic is because they went ahead with something they believed in even taking the risk of being blacklisted. Many things are made just because the shame of the past, and this is one of them. For me it´s the same thing if White people are treating bad Black people or Balck people treating bad Black people or White on White. There´s no difference and i support everything wich puts a stop to human violence in this world. But to close the eyes to some atrocities and waving a flag against others just to appear they care- this is the highest level of hypocrisy by the politicians. In the last 20 years many countries have appeared good in the news by standing against racism, at the same time they were sponsoring war in several countries in Africa. It´s the world we live in! We need more guys like Bono, Madre Teresa and others who can really speak from the heart and help. Take care |
| Mr Faron Hyte 09.03.2007 23:42 |
PieterMC wrote:Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying the same thing. Its like comparing apples and blue whales.radio_what's_new wrote: Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions: -Break Free video -Hot Space -Queen Dance tracks -Musical -Pepsi commercial -Under pressure RAH mix -stone cold classics -Rocks -GH 3 -DORO twins -bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one) -John Farnhem -shall I continu?Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City. |
| radio_what's_new 10.03.2007 08:54 |
YourValentine wrote: Well, I never said they supported the Apartheid regime intentionally. All the other examples you mentioned do not apply to the specific situation in Sun City in the 80s because there was an international cultural boycott. Maybe you can compare it to the Olympics in Moscow 1980 which was boycotted by many Western countries - no Western athlete from the boycotting nations could go there and if they had ignored the boycott by their sports organisations they would have been totally unable to take part in any other sports event again. This was very tough for athletes who had spent years in preparation for the olympics and I personally thought the boycott was ridiculous because the boycott of one event could not make the invasion of Afghanistan undone. However, the cultural boycott of South Africa could help to end the apartheid system and it was a great hope for the (black) majority in the country. You need a lot of goodwill and turning a blind eye to the situation in the country to defend Queen's Sun City concerts.Maybe you're right. But I still can't understand how a cultural boycott can change a situation like the apartheid regime. |