I always queen was formed in 1970 and john deacon was in from 1971??? and that's why i said 40th anniversary, but hey if i'm wrong so be it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Queen were formed in 1970. In fact they held a 21st party in 1991.
er, I've got an official T shirt with the Innuendo faces on it and the words "20th Anniversary 1991" on the back.
What's your source?
What's your source?
The party they had in 1991 was billed as a 20th anniversary. The normal course of events is to wait until 20 years from an artists first release, as opposed to first forming, but as they knew Freddie would not be with us in another 2 years, it was decided to bringh tis forward.
In addition, weren't the original Hollywood Promo 'Rocks' CDs brought out as a 20th Anniversary release in 1991??
In addition, weren't the original Hollywood Promo 'Rocks' CDs brought out as a 20th Anniversary release in 1991??
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]cmsdrums wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In addition, weren't the original Hollywood Promo 'Rocks' CDs brought out as a 20th Anniversary release in 1991??[/QUOTE]
Yes they came out in 1991, but I'm not sure of the exact release date.
In addition, weren't the original Hollywood Promo 'Rocks' CDs brought out as a 20th Anniversary release in 1991??[/QUOTE]
Yes they came out in 1991, but I'm not sure of the exact release date.
Yes, Fried Chicken, excellent post. We are tremendously unlucky as fans who want musical treats, but to keep beating the dead horse, QP is all about money, and if you can release individual tracks to shitty collections and countless GH albums, there's not much incentive to release a definitive product. I think Jim Beach, Brian and Roger want to run this strategy until they can go no further, then we'll see a definitive collection. Unfortunately, for a guy who collected everything and seems to be the de facto guardian of the Queen legacy, I don't have a lot of faith in Brian's ability to get it right.
Boy Thomas Raker,
Regarding Brian's role, I get exactly where you are coming from, but to be honest, it will ALL depend on exactly what role he or Roger or John has within the organisation. And what he's allowed to say / do.
Look at the absolute LACK of Queen information on his own personal site for example. RARELY does he post anything there that relates directly to the band. I'd have thought he'd be using it to expand on his time with the guys, but if he's had to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement, perhaps he's also bound by other agreements that were signed that perhaps limit his input in to ANY decisions that are made.
For example, as their business manager (or whatever he calls himself), does Jim Beach have a greater percentage of the say in the decision making process than Brian, Roger and John? Is his share of the pie greater than the share of the other there put together, given that he represents Freddie? I'd be extremely surprised if it was an equal 4-way split.
This would / could therefore mean that Brian has pretty much NO control over anything that happens. News from him comes out pretty much at the same time any official news is released and contains little more than official press release material.
Why would that be when he's supposed to be the artist in control?
Regarding Brian's role, I get exactly where you are coming from, but to be honest, it will ALL depend on exactly what role he or Roger or John has within the organisation. And what he's allowed to say / do.
Look at the absolute LACK of Queen information on his own personal site for example. RARELY does he post anything there that relates directly to the band. I'd have thought he'd be using it to expand on his time with the guys, but if he's had to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement, perhaps he's also bound by other agreements that were signed that perhaps limit his input in to ANY decisions that are made.
For example, as their business manager (or whatever he calls himself), does Jim Beach have a greater percentage of the say in the decision making process than Brian, Roger and John? Is his share of the pie greater than the share of the other there put together, given that he represents Freddie? I'd be extremely surprised if it was an equal 4-way split.
This would / could therefore mean that Brian has pretty much NO control over anything that happens. News from him comes out pretty much at the same time any official news is released and contains little more than official press release material.
Why would that be when he's supposed to be the artist in control?
Interesting thoughts Benn, and I couldn't do anything but speculate on things. However, as Brian is at worst the spokesman for Queen by default, he is either out of touch, or so driven by money that he isn't make good artistic decisions. We all know that Jim Beach is a business guy, and he's done an amazing job of moving Queen product. There's a cost to that though, and the cost is Queen's reputation as a serious band. Brian has complained on a thousand occasions on how people focus on Queen's hits to the detriment of their catalogue. But really, QP has an agreement that all of those compilations have Queen as the first song of CD1. They aren't using Lily of the Valley for "Songs to bawl your eyes out to, vol. 29, it's a previously released single such as "Save Me", or "WWTLF." Then there's the 3 official GH albums, plus Stone Cold Classics, plus the new Wal Mart release. Plus the greatest hits musical. So they focus on that, and when they get a chance to address their greatness, we get an effort like the 30th anniversary of ANATO, which was a colossal joke.
Queen, and Brian, were known for their fights in the studio. Brian is quoted as saying that they all bristled under the direction of Roy Thomas Baker on the first two albums, when the band had tons of creative ideas (Roger hated RTB's method of damping the drum sound) and said they had to go along with it as "we were the boys, and they were the bosses." After that, Brian said that after SHA, their producers were more like referee's and less directors. So given the fact that they'd fight for everything, I'd be surprised that they'd be afraid to speak up to Jim Beach if they had a quarrel, which leads me to believe that they are happier selling units than putting out meaningful product. There was a fantastic, well balanced article in MOJO about 6 years ago, and the premise was Queen were either rock's last revolutionaries who were risk takers without peers, or cynical opportunists who milked the middle and their music suffered. I think until Jazz, they were revolutionaries, after that, I think they wanted to put out well crafted music that was less daring, but more accessible, which is where they are today with their bland releases.
Queen, and Brian, were known for their fights in the studio. Brian is quoted as saying that they all bristled under the direction of Roy Thomas Baker on the first two albums, when the band had tons of creative ideas (Roger hated RTB's method of damping the drum sound) and said they had to go along with it as "we were the boys, and they were the bosses." After that, Brian said that after SHA, their producers were more like referee's and less directors. So given the fact that they'd fight for everything, I'd be surprised that they'd be afraid to speak up to Jim Beach if they had a quarrel, which leads me to believe that they are happier selling units than putting out meaningful product. There was a fantastic, well balanced article in MOJO about 6 years ago, and the premise was Queen were either rock's last revolutionaries who were risk takers without peers, or cynical opportunists who milked the middle and their music suffered. I think until Jazz, they were revolutionaries, after that, I think they wanted to put out well crafted music that was less daring, but more accessible, which is where they are today with their bland releases.