OK, you're right, but you know what I was trying to say. That they are or were a BAND, therefore everybody was important.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen, the band, was an amazing band of four individuals who made the whole greater than any of the parts. However, given the countless errors, lack of quality control and half assed efforts that have been made since his death, I firmly believe that it was pretty much Freddie Mercury who embodied what Queen as a band was. In addition to the bands de facto creative/art director, Freddie named the band, created the logo, and had the greatest input into the bands visual style, which was iconic (II, ANATO and ADATR) and visually arresting (SHA.) When Freddie died, one of the British mags that hated him quoted him as saying, "we just want to be a regal British band, dear." They grudingly said that he accomplished that in spades.
Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot. [/QUOTE]
Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen, the band, was an amazing band of four individuals who made the whole greater than any of the parts. However, given the countless errors, lack of quality control and half assed efforts that have been made since his death, I firmly believe that it was pretty much Freddie Mercury who embodied what Queen as a band was. In addition to the bands de facto creative/art director, Freddie named the band, created the logo, and had the greatest input into the bands visual style, which was iconic (II, ANATO and ADATR) and visually arresting (SHA.) When Freddie died, one of the British mags that hated him quoted him as saying, "we just want to be a regal British band, dear." They grudingly said that he accomplished that in spades.
Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot. [/QUOTE]
yup.
and there you have it.
Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot. [/QUOTE]
yup.
and there you have it.
Fair comment, Maz, and that's what I mean about Wal Mart versus Barnes & Noble. Excluding people like Pittrek who can't decipher a statement that says I wasn't talking musically, I think that Freddie embodied the regal side of Queen. The overdramtic flourishes, the costume changes, the flowers with the thorns picked out, those are Freddie things. I don't see him being party to running promos and contests for WWRY in a rag like the Sun, or creating an exclusive album in one of music's great catalogues for a price conscious retailer.
And to digress, I think that Wal Mart is a tremendous problem for Americans and the American economy with their pricing policies. As I stated in another thread, many Americans are as anti-Wal Mart and their policies as Brian is anti-hedgehog killing. I can guarantee that if a fan sent Brian an e-amil on how poor a decision it is to do exclusive business with Wal Mart due to their cost to the health care system by paying low wages or the fact that many Americans are losing jobs as Wal Mart farms out to producers in China to keep their low price poicy in place, Brian would drum up some excuse justifying it and removing himself from the process. He plays both sides of the fence as a businessman (witness his embarrassing back and forth on reality shows, always coinciding with his appearance on one), and I think that QP are more profit oriented, which is fine, but less customer and quality friendly than they've evr been. Who knows, I may be wrong and if Freddie were here it could be worse.
And you're right about John Deacon, Seb, I've excluded him in a business sense because nobobdy knows how involved he is in decisions like this. According to Roger and Brian, he sits at home and collects royalty cheques, so in my mind he's not involved in the QP other than giving blessings for everything.
And to digress, I think that Wal Mart is a tremendous problem for Americans and the American economy with their pricing policies. As I stated in another thread, many Americans are as anti-Wal Mart and their policies as Brian is anti-hedgehog killing. I can guarantee that if a fan sent Brian an e-amil on how poor a decision it is to do exclusive business with Wal Mart due to their cost to the health care system by paying low wages or the fact that many Americans are losing jobs as Wal Mart farms out to producers in China to keep their low price poicy in place, Brian would drum up some excuse justifying it and removing himself from the process. He plays both sides of the fence as a businessman (witness his embarrassing back and forth on reality shows, always coinciding with his appearance on one), and I think that QP are more profit oriented, which is fine, but less customer and quality friendly than they've evr been. Who knows, I may be wrong and if Freddie were here it could be worse.
And you're right about John Deacon, Seb, I've excluded him in a business sense because nobobdy knows how involved he is in decisions like this. According to Roger and Brian, he sits at home and collects royalty cheques, so in my mind he's not involved in the QP other than giving blessings for everything.
Can't argue with the poster, I remember Brian May actually saying a few weeks maybe months after Freddie's death "we'll never cash in" - bollocks, the last Queen CD I bought was Queen Rocks because of the single that went with it. Queen Hits III is pile of shite to include solo tracks is the biggest example of cashing in.
Some faith has been restored with the DVD releases & the paul rogers link up, but it is a shambles
Some faith has been restored with the DVD releases & the paul rogers link up, but it is a shambles
TAKE A BOW for the guts for actually saying what I've been thinking eversince Freddie's Mercury Collection back in 1992! Dear friend, you are not alone in these thoughts - I ABSOLUTELY agree and support you here! As for those teeny, consumer-oriented, obsessed guys who like everything they are offered under Queen brand just because they can buy it, I don't give a shit! I am only too glad to see loyal people like you to the man who actually brought Queen to stardome. For... let's face it "Smile" are not that good and Paul Rodgers will never reach Freddie's level in terms of artistry!
Once again THANK YOU!
Once again THANK YOU!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Wal Mart album may be a great album, Erin, however, Wal Mart is a low end, price sensitive, cheap retailer. Philosophically, Freddie wasn't a cheap person. The stories of him keeping high end stores in Japan open after to shop there are legendary. I couldn't ever see him setting foot in a Wal Mart, and I'm sure that he'd see this as a step away from a crppy infomercial. Nothing regal about this release, but I see your point.
[/QUOTE]
i have to disagree with you on this.
1. freddie may have had expensive tastes but he was not a snob. and he was fully aware of how he started his working life - on a fucking market stall selling second hand clothes...
2. he would laso be aware of the fact that a great pecrentage of the fans can't afford every full-price release...to them teh Wal-Mart release is a welcome alternative
[/QUOTE]
i have to disagree with you on this.
1. freddie may have had expensive tastes but he was not a snob. and he was fully aware of how he started his working life - on a fucking market stall selling second hand clothes...
2. he would laso be aware of the fact that a great pecrentage of the fans can't afford every full-price release...to them teh Wal-Mart release is a welcome alternative
yeah, brian and roger should stop playing their own songs as well, the nerve!
It's the idea of how the catalogue is handled, Brenski, more than the venue. I'm a traditionalist, and I believe that the catalogue should be handled in a better way, period. People talk about QP being a business, but as Lester says, how much money do you need? If Queen doesn't sell another album for the rest of time, they'll still have earned more, individually, than possibly every poster on this board combined. They don't NEED to do things like the Wal Mart release, or Barnes and Noble or Harrod's. Every release like this devalues the catalogue and Queen product. Mercedes hasn't recovered from the introduction of their more affrodable C series, since there was a certain cache and snobbiness to driving a Benz, and lowering the price and making it more accessible devalued the brand to its long time drivers. I think of Queen music in the same light. Throwaway, low cost collections like the Wal Mart release, and Stone Cold Classics are cynical cash grabs, have no artisitic appeal or merit, and don't belong in the catalogue. IMHO ;)
Stop the freak out. Most things are all good. They just need a better cover for "Queen Rock Montreal". Otherwise if some compilation sucks or what have you they can put it out of print. Name one other group that hasn't toured the U.S. or the world in almost TWENTY YEARS where the drummer and guitarist could just pick up and have success touring colliseums mere less filling up Hyde Park the way that they did. Phenomenal. This is not divinity it is silly rock n' roll so get off of your high horse before I shoot it and eat it for dinner...I'm hungry stand still now. Please jerk off somewhere else people. There are other websites for that.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Stop the freak out. Most things are all good. They just need a better cover for "Queen Rock Montreal". Otherwise if some compilation sucks or what have you they can put it out of print. Name one other group that hasn't toured the U.S. or the world in almost TWENTY YEARS where the drummer and guitarist could just pick up and have success touring colliseums mere less filling up Hyde Park the way that they did. Phenomenal. This is not divinity it is silly rock n' roll so get off of your high horse before I shoot it and eat it for dinner...I'm hungry stand still now. Please jerk off somewhere else people. There are other websites for that.[/QUOTE]
If you'd have read the thread, Alex, no one's talking about Q+PR here: we're talking about the shabby way that Queen's back catalog has been handled, and if you look at it -- and I mean REALLY look at it -- you'll see how true it is.
This is a serious discussion, so unless you have something serious to add to it (which, you didn't), don't contribute. Go jerk off elsewhere.
If you'd have read the thread, Alex, no one's talking about Q+PR here: we're talking about the shabby way that Queen's back catalog has been handled, and if you look at it -- and I mean REALLY look at it -- you'll see how true it is.
This is a serious discussion, so unless you have something serious to add to it (which, you didn't), don't contribute. Go jerk off elsewhere.
Hey Alex, I'll go easy on you since it appears English isn't your main language given your sentence and thought structure. However, you may have noticed that there seems to be a great deal of disgust about Queen Rocks Montreal + Live Aid. If you had read the majority of threads over the past few days you'd be aware that the latest QP release is part of a long pattern of inferior releases compared to other bands releases, and even Queen's releases prior to 1991. If you like everything that Queen releases, that is your choice. If others don't like everything that Queen releases, and it appears there are many of us, that is our choice.
I pretty much agree with the main points as to how the Queen name and catalogue are handled. The bottom line comes down to the fact that Jim Beach is an ACCOUNTANT, not a music manager, and therefore is in the business of making money, and does not really have a clue when it comes down to the credibility of the material, yet he seems to have a disproportionate say on what is released. I think that this is summed up by the Freddie 60th anniversary stuff which had no input from musically minded people at all.
This is where Brian (and Roger) should put a foot down and insist on WHAT is and isn't released, and JB should then be left to think about HOW this is done from a format, marketing, press angle etc...
The deal with The Sun for the WWRY CD is despicable, the Hollywood remixes are uneccessary and mostly poor, the endless Greatest Hits releases, the terrible ANATO 30th Aniversary release...
I know that there is the tricky situation that after Freddie's death they obviously became an ex-band, and therefore alongside acts such as The Beatles, could only stay in the public conciousness through careful re-releases of the back catalogue, but I think the problem is that it hasn't been careful at all. Many far less prolific and less important old bands release archive sets, live concerts etc... that remain credible, well thought out, and are aimed at the fans but still carry enough of interest to the general buying public. How Queen cannot/will not manage this I don't know.
It seems pretty clear from now on (from quotes by Brian and Greg Brooks amongst others) that releases will not be considered unless they can be, for example, in HD, Blu Ray, Surround Sound etc... This elitist approach means that we could miss out on stuff like Hammy Odeon 75 DVD,
Earls Court 77 DVD etc... sinply because a stereo mix and an original colour grade film isn't deemed good enough to release - if stuff doesn't exist in HD or multitrack, then why not just make this clear when releasing it and say that this is the best version possible. No one complained about the quality of the original releases of Budapest, Wembley etc.. on VHS did they?
The rave reviews of the Led Zep stuff which included bootlegs footage and old grainy audience shots, TV footage etc.. just goes to show that its the rarity and quality of the performance, not the quality of the media it comes on, that is important.
Sorry, I only planned to write a few lines but got carried away!!
This is where Brian (and Roger) should put a foot down and insist on WHAT is and isn't released, and JB should then be left to think about HOW this is done from a format, marketing, press angle etc...
The deal with The Sun for the WWRY CD is despicable, the Hollywood remixes are uneccessary and mostly poor, the endless Greatest Hits releases, the terrible ANATO 30th Aniversary release...
I know that there is the tricky situation that after Freddie's death they obviously became an ex-band, and therefore alongside acts such as The Beatles, could only stay in the public conciousness through careful re-releases of the back catalogue, but I think the problem is that it hasn't been careful at all. Many far less prolific and less important old bands release archive sets, live concerts etc... that remain credible, well thought out, and are aimed at the fans but still carry enough of interest to the general buying public. How Queen cannot/will not manage this I don't know.
It seems pretty clear from now on (from quotes by Brian and Greg Brooks amongst others) that releases will not be considered unless they can be, for example, in HD, Blu Ray, Surround Sound etc... This elitist approach means that we could miss out on stuff like Hammy Odeon 75 DVD,
Earls Court 77 DVD etc... sinply because a stereo mix and an original colour grade film isn't deemed good enough to release - if stuff doesn't exist in HD or multitrack, then why not just make this clear when releasing it and say that this is the best version possible. No one complained about the quality of the original releases of Budapest, Wembley etc.. on VHS did they?
The rave reviews of the Led Zep stuff which included bootlegs footage and old grainy audience shots, TV footage etc.. just goes to show that its the rarity and quality of the performance, not the quality of the media it comes on, that is important.
Sorry, I only planned to write a few lines but got carried away!!
Your Mercedes analogy doesn't work, BTR, because I think there was little about Queen that appealed solely to the upper-crust. This has always been a band that tried to reach as many people as much as possible (introducing videos, large concert venues, multiple greatest hits releases, etc, etc).
Now, I do agree with the idea that some releases are cash-grabs, but I think they would have also taken place to some extent with Freddie around. Let's not forget that even Elton John has done similar store-exclusive releases like his 4 DVD box set from a couple years back. I imagine that Freddie would have supported those same kind of releases.
One last point - the industry as a whole has changed. Look at Mika's US release - how many different store-exclusive releases were there? I know both Best Buy and Target had exclusive tracks on their Mika CDs, and that this is a patterned followed by many new and old artists releasing CDs today. Heck, QPR did the same thing with the ROTC CD and QP did it with their WWRY GH CD. This is probably a reality of modern music in the age of the digital download more than a sad comment on the tastes of Queen Productions.
Now, I do agree with the idea that some releases are cash-grabs, but I think they would have also taken place to some extent with Freddie around. Let's not forget that even Elton John has done similar store-exclusive releases like his 4 DVD box set from a couple years back. I imagine that Freddie would have supported those same kind of releases.
One last point - the industry as a whole has changed. Look at Mika's US release - how many different store-exclusive releases were there? I know both Best Buy and Target had exclusive tracks on their Mika CDs, and that this is a patterned followed by many new and old artists releasing CDs today. Heck, QPR did the same thing with the ROTC CD and QP did it with their WWRY GH CD. This is probably a reality of modern music in the age of the digital download more than a sad comment on the tastes of Queen Productions.
What I meant Maz with the Mercedes analogy was the perception of ownership value, not elitism or snobbiness. Mercedes-Benz were always a top of line company, and the perception from the business community was that becoming a more affordable vehicle in some cases hurt the brand, and what they stood for. Comparing that to Queen, and Freddie's comment that I posted about being a regal band, I think the Queen catalogue is a jewel in the world of music. If the Beatles are the Rolls Royce of music catalogues, Queen is the Bentley. Rolls Royce or Bentley are synonymous with class. They won't be showcasing their vehicles in a used car lot on the side of the road. The Beatles have been very judicious in their licencing, as have Zep and AC/DC for the most part. Queen hasn't. At last count, the song WWRY has been in about 8 or 9 movies over the past 10 years, in addition to re-recording it for an ad with pop stars, plus versions with John Farnham and the cast of WWRY. Has that made the song bettr or more popular? I'd argue that for young people WWRY is the theme to the Mighty Ducks movie or some Disney animation. Plus, it makes Queen appear like a greatest hits band, which Brian didn't want to be known as a few years back. If that's the case, why keep releasing greatest hits packages only?