[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Tero believes in that cynical mind of his that Brian and Roger are actually glad that Freddie died.[/QUOTE]
And I wouldn't be one bit surprise if you were ecstatic about Freddie dying and Paul being given a chance to replace him...
See, we can both come up with fictional scenarios to make each other sound like heartless bastards. ;)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Steven wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.
[/QUOTE]
I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...
That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him?[/QUOTE]
Seriously this is ridiculous...
Why cant you just forget about those outtakes for a moment and listen to some other music... You must spend every waking moment hating Brian and Roger.
If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.
[/QUOTE]
I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...
That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him?[/QUOTE]
Seriously this is ridiculous...
Why cant you just forget about those outtakes for a moment and listen to some other music... You must spend every waking moment hating Brian and Roger.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Steven wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.
[/QUOTE]
I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...
That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him?[/QUOTE]
Seriously this is ridiculous...
Why cant you just forget about those outtakes for a moment and listen to some other music... You must spend every waking moment hating Brian and Roger.[/QUOTE]
Did I mention outtakes in this topic? I don't think I did.
Did I say I hate Brian and Roger? No, I didn't do that either.
I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Perhaps you can now return to the original topic as well. Thanks!
If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.
[/QUOTE]
I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...
That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him?[/QUOTE]
Seriously this is ridiculous...
Why cant you just forget about those outtakes for a moment and listen to some other music... You must spend every waking moment hating Brian and Roger.[/QUOTE]
Did I mention outtakes in this topic? I don't think I did.
Did I say I hate Brian and Roger? No, I didn't do that either.
I'm glad we got that sorted out.
Perhaps you can now return to the original topic as well. Thanks!
We have just spent a week discussing the tracklisting, were you directly stated that the reason for you not liking this is that it interfers with the regular releases, i.e. the outtakes.
Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.
Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We have just spent a week discussing the tracklisting, were you directly stated that the reason for you not liking this is that it interfers with the regular releases, i.e. the outtakes.
Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Please don't bring other topics in here to distract the actual issue.
You say my opinion is a conspiracy theory, and that's your right.
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?
Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Please don't bring other topics in here to distract the actual issue.
You say my opinion is a conspiracy theory, and that's your right.
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We have just spent a week discussing the tracklisting, were you directly stated that the reason for you not liking this is that it interfers with the regular releases, i.e. the outtakes.
Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Please don't bring other topics in here to distract the actual issue.
You say my opinion is a conspiracy theory, and that's your right.
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
No. I find what they have done completely natural. I would have done the same thing.
They are bringing the Queen-name back in a different format. It is only natural that they dedicate it to what was once. Id say that making this album has definitely brought back a lot of memories for them. And why would they dedicate everything they do to Freddie?
To suggest they have no feelings about his passing like you do is ridiculous. You did not even meet the man, why do you think your some kind of guardian of hius memory?
End of this discussion for me, this is a vast of time.
Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Please don't bring other topics in here to distract the actual issue.
You say my opinion is a conspiracy theory, and that's your right.
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
No. I find what they have done completely natural. I would have done the same thing.
They are bringing the Queen-name back in a different format. It is only natural that they dedicate it to what was once. Id say that making this album has definitely brought back a lot of memories for them. And why would they dedicate everything they do to Freddie?
To suggest they have no feelings about his passing like you do is ridiculous. You did not even meet the man, why do you think your some kind of guardian of hius memory?
End of this discussion for me, this is a vast of time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point. And to put this one small dedication into perspective, AC/DC's whole first album with a new singer (Back in Black) was a tribute to their old singer.
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point. And to put this one small dedication into perspective, AC/DC's whole first album with a new singer (Back in Black) was a tribute to their old singer.
I don't have any more intimate knowledge than you do, right? Im not a guardian of Freddie's memory, and you're not the spokesman for Brian and Roger.
Plenty of people are happy to say this dedication is a personal tribute with no ulterior motives, and I'm giving an other possible explanation. Neither viewpoint has any actual evidence to back it up, so this is just a speculative discussion about an emotional topic.
If you don't like it, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you to read it.
Plenty of people are happy to say this dedication is a personal tribute with no ulterior motives, and I'm giving an other possible explanation. Neither viewpoint has any actual evidence to back it up, so this is just a speculative discussion about an emotional topic.
If you don't like it, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you to read it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point.[/QUOTE]
Let's think about what you said for a moment...
What you're saying is that this album is dedicated to Freddie only because they are using the Queen name (hence the "token gesture"), right?
What I posted earlier was that this dedication is expected because the Queen name is used, and wouldn't be expected from a Brian or Roger album under any other name, right?
The dedication is there because it "has" to be there on a Queen album, and not because the members actually want it to be there.
How is that NOT a calculated move without a genuine emotional content?
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point.[/QUOTE]
Let's think about what you said for a moment...
What you're saying is that this album is dedicated to Freddie only because they are using the Queen name (hence the "token gesture"), right?
What I posted earlier was that this dedication is expected because the Queen name is used, and wouldn't be expected from a Brian or Roger album under any other name, right?
The dedication is there because it "has" to be there on a Queen album, and not because the members actually want it to be there.
How is that NOT a calculated move without a genuine emotional content?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point.[/QUOTE]
What you're saying is that this album is dedicated to Freddie only because they are using the Queen name (hence the "token gesture"), right?
What I posted earlier was that this dedication is expected because the Queen name is used, and wouldn't be expected from a Brian or Roger album under any other name, right?
The dedication is there because it "has" to be there on a Queen album, and not because the members actually want it to be there.
How is that NOT a calculated move without a genuine emotional content?[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't HAVE to be there. they could easily have made a 'statement' that they are making a new start by not mentioning Freddie. However, they obviously thought that was inappropriate. It is impossible for you or me or anyone to know how much "emotional content" is in the dedication. It is,however, definitely not "odd" as you stated. People make these gestures all the time in everyday life. Going to a funeral, sending a birthday card etc. All normal and reasonable. How much real genuine emotion is in those gestures is only for the sender to gauge. You assign cynical motives when you cannot possibly know for certain, or even make a reasonable assumption of the emotional content of the message. That's not just being cynical (because there's nothing wrong with that) it's illogical. And while people can of course hold and express opinions as they see fit, when they are completely illogical they tend to come across as whacko or obsessed. When aded to your bizarre attempt to make a big issue of "Queen touring Co" evidence is mounting that you are now entering this territory ;)
So what's your theory?
That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him?
Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?[/QUOTE]
It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point.[/QUOTE]
What you're saying is that this album is dedicated to Freddie only because they are using the Queen name (hence the "token gesture"), right?
What I posted earlier was that this dedication is expected because the Queen name is used, and wouldn't be expected from a Brian or Roger album under any other name, right?
The dedication is there because it "has" to be there on a Queen album, and not because the members actually want it to be there.
How is that NOT a calculated move without a genuine emotional content?[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't HAVE to be there. they could easily have made a 'statement' that they are making a new start by not mentioning Freddie. However, they obviously thought that was inappropriate. It is impossible for you or me or anyone to know how much "emotional content" is in the dedication. It is,however, definitely not "odd" as you stated. People make these gestures all the time in everyday life. Going to a funeral, sending a birthday card etc. All normal and reasonable. How much real genuine emotion is in those gestures is only for the sender to gauge. You assign cynical motives when you cannot possibly know for certain, or even make a reasonable assumption of the emotional content of the message. That's not just being cynical (because there's nothing wrong with that) it's illogical. And while people can of course hold and express opinions as they see fit, when they are completely illogical they tend to come across as whacko or obsessed. When aded to your bizarre attempt to make a big issue of "Queen touring Co" evidence is mounting that you are now entering this territory ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No it doesn't HAVE to be there. they could easily have made a 'statement' that they are making a new start by not mentioning Freddie. However, they obviously thought that was inappropriate. It is impossible for you or me or anyone to know how much "emotional content" is in the dedication. It is,however, definitely not "odd" as you stated. People make these gestures all the time in everyday life. Going to a funeral, sending a birthday card etc. All normal and reasonable. How much real genuine emotion is in those gestures is only for the sender to gauge. You assign cynical motives when you cannot possibly know for certain, or even make a reasonable assumption of the emotional content of the message. That's not just being cynical (because there's nothing wrong with that) it's illogical. [/QUOTE]
It is odd indeed if you look at it from a culture where empty greetings are not common, but I imagine there are some countries in the world where it's the accepted norm to dedicate everything to everyone even if you don't mean it.
But like you say, only the sender will know for certain how much emotion there is involved.
It's funny how this argument only works for the people who go for the negative interpretation, not the ones with positive interpretations. ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And while people can of course hold and express opinions as they see fit, when they are completely illogical they tend to come across as whacko or obsessed. When aded to your bizarre attempt to make a big issue of "Queen touring Co" evidence is mounting that you are now entering this territory ;)[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for "you", there is a logic to my topics.
There are certain implications when some records are dedicated to Freddie and others aren't, and there is a logic to why some Queen releases are attributed to "Queen Productions" while others are attributed to "Queen Touring"...
The fact that you choose to take these things at face value without thinking about the reasoning behind them doesn't make the issues any more trivial than analysing the lyrics of the latest "Queen" song.
It is odd indeed if you look at it from a culture where empty greetings are not common, but I imagine there are some countries in the world where it's the accepted norm to dedicate everything to everyone even if you don't mean it.
But like you say, only the sender will know for certain how much emotion there is involved.
It's funny how this argument only works for the people who go for the negative interpretation, not the ones with positive interpretations. ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And while people can of course hold and express opinions as they see fit, when they are completely illogical they tend to come across as whacko or obsessed. When aded to your bizarre attempt to make a big issue of "Queen touring Co" evidence is mounting that you are now entering this territory ;)[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for "you", there is a logic to my topics.
There are certain implications when some records are dedicated to Freddie and others aren't, and there is a logic to why some Queen releases are attributed to "Queen Productions" while others are attributed to "Queen Touring"...
The fact that you choose to take these things at face value without thinking about the reasoning behind them doesn't make the issues any more trivial than analysing the lyrics of the latest "Queen" song.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...
[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing the point, Tero. SOLO albums are often very personal. They're attempts to get away from the band (remember Freddie thanked Bri, Rog & John for not interfering on Mr Bad Guy) and show what the artist can do on his own. And that's exactly what earlier solo projects have been like. BTTL and Happiness were dedicated to Freddie, and for a good reason. Those albums were written at the time of Freddie's death and Freddie is very much present on those albums. Later projects by Bri & Rog had very little to do with Freddie. They were solo albums that showed us what was happening in their lives at THAT point. This new project is not a solo album. They're actually a duo+solo artist. But of course you're right about the fact that since it's marketed as Queen+ they're obliged to make the nods to the past. Had it been a P+B+R album... we'll never know, but this is Q+PR, and like Brian said it's a "Queenly" album. B+R made it with Queen in their minds, not as a showcase of three individual solo artists.
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...
[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing the point, Tero. SOLO albums are often very personal. They're attempts to get away from the band (remember Freddie thanked Bri, Rog & John for not interfering on Mr Bad Guy) and show what the artist can do on his own. And that's exactly what earlier solo projects have been like. BTTL and Happiness were dedicated to Freddie, and for a good reason. Those albums were written at the time of Freddie's death and Freddie is very much present on those albums. Later projects by Bri & Rog had very little to do with Freddie. They were solo albums that showed us what was happening in their lives at THAT point. This new project is not a solo album. They're actually a duo+solo artist. But of course you're right about the fact that since it's marketed as Queen+ they're obliged to make the nods to the past. Had it been a P+B+R album... we'll never know, but this is Q+PR, and like Brian said it's a "Queenly" album. B+R made it with Queen in their minds, not as a showcase of three individual solo artists.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
a simple plot to exploit the feelings of the Queen fans...
[/QUOTE]
Can't you go find a moustache to twirl?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
What's more likely; that Q+PR are in a boardroom right now, planning on how they can trick us and manipulate us?
Or that they might feel like dedicating the album to someone that they worked with for 20 years?
I remember Brian mentioning some bloke called Freddie Mercury in the cover of "Back To The Light"... I guess that was a ploy too! Hehe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
[/QUOTE]
A very, very flimsy point.
Why would you dedicate EACH ALBUM to the same person?? That is utterly ridiculous.
It might work if you're John Lennon and every 2nd song is about Yoko, but this is different.
For a lot of musicians, the music tends to be somewhat topical with regard to what they are feeling when they make a bit of music.
It makes sense for some of the music (like "Nothing But Blue") to be about what's going on at the time, and for the first album following the death of a friend to carry a dedication to them.
Why would Brian have dedicated "Another World" to Freddie? He'd been dead since 1991 and Brian had lost other people since then.
Whether you call this new band Queen + Paul Rodgers, Good Company, or Sgt. Fucking Peppers, it's a new band borne out of the remnants of an old one, and I think it's more than fair to dedicate it to (or at least mention) an ex-member.
Use a bit of logic, for Christ's sake.
a simple plot to exploit the feelings of the Queen fans...
[/QUOTE]
Can't you go find a moustache to twirl?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
What's more likely; that Q+PR are in a boardroom right now, planning on how they can trick us and manipulate us?
Or that they might feel like dedicating the album to someone that they worked with for 20 years?
I remember Brian mentioning some bloke called Freddie Mercury in the cover of "Back To The Light"... I guess that was a ploy too! Hehe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.
[/QUOTE]
A very, very flimsy point.
Why would you dedicate EACH ALBUM to the same person?? That is utterly ridiculous.
It might work if you're John Lennon and every 2nd song is about Yoko, but this is different.
For a lot of musicians, the music tends to be somewhat topical with regard to what they are feeling when they make a bit of music.
It makes sense for some of the music (like "Nothing But Blue") to be about what's going on at the time, and for the first album following the death of a friend to carry a dedication to them.
Why would Brian have dedicated "Another World" to Freddie? He'd been dead since 1991 and Brian had lost other people since then.
Whether you call this new band Queen + Paul Rodgers, Good Company, or Sgt. Fucking Peppers, it's a new band borne out of the remnants of an old one, and I think it's more than fair to dedicate it to (or at least mention) an ex-member.
Use a bit of logic, for Christ's sake.
TERO: It is odd indeed if you look at it from a culture where empty greetings are not common, but I imagine there are some countries in the world where it's the accepted norm to dedicate everything to everyone even if you don't mean it.
ME: I am talking about the UK. Queen are a British band. In that context, everyday culture clearly means everyday british culture. I am not margaret mead and don't wish to write an anthropological essay explaining and clarifying everything i say for the deliberately obtuse.
TERO: But like you say, only the sender will know for certain how much emotion there is involved. It's funny how this argument only works for the people who go for the negative interpretation, not the ones with positive interpretations.
ME: In this case the 'negative interpretation' is based on little but one person's nitpicking and bizarre logic. The positive interpretation makes a lot more sense because it can at least be supported by logical analysis.
TERO: Unfortunately for "you", there is a logic to my topics.
ME: There is a certain logic to it, but not one that carries any weight with anyone except you.
TERO: There are certain implications when some records are dedicated to Freddie and others aren't,
ME: You can imply a lot of things, but no one but you is taking them seriously. What does that tell you, that you are a lone genius who is somehow able to fathom some hidden logic behind a simple dedication on a record, or that maybe you've got it wrong and are taking all of this far, far too serioUsly and, perhaps, obsessively?
TERO: and there is a logic to why some Queen releases are attributed to "Queen Productions" while others are attributed to "Queen Touring"... The fact that you choose to take these things at face value without thinking about the reasoning behind them doesn't make the issues any more trivial than analysing the lyrics of the latest "Queen" song.
ME: There is in all probability legal and financial reasons for this, as was discussed in the thread. I don't take them at face value at all: in fact, it is probably one of the more boring subjects on Queenzone, and does very little to hold my attention. The reason you got so many replies is because of the bizarre interpretation you put on it, that "it's strange indeed to change the production company if Brian and Roger still consider themselves Queen" or "is it perhaps a question of artistic integrity and not wanting to be Queen after all"--- and so on. Your thread on the subject ostensibly seems to be about seeking knowledge, but they way you pose your questions (and your replies)is like many conspiracy theorists who ask people to commment on what they pose as "odd" or "strange" occurrences when in fact there is usually a simple and logical explanation that they refuse to accept.
A word of advice: a few years back I may have been the only one to support your position, not because I actually beleived it but because of frustration at Queen's lack of output, or not working with people I wanted them to work with. But i've realised something important. Brian may and Roger taylor will do what they want to do and not what we want them to do. They have demonstrated that over and over again. It is what is is and when you learn to accept that as I (mostly) have your relationship with what's left of Queen will be a happier one. They're not going to be around forever: enjoy it while you can and stop fretting over what they choose to call themselves or what they call their touring co. or indeed what small dedications they put on their cds to their former frontman.
ME: I am talking about the UK. Queen are a British band. In that context, everyday culture clearly means everyday british culture. I am not margaret mead and don't wish to write an anthropological essay explaining and clarifying everything i say for the deliberately obtuse.
TERO: But like you say, only the sender will know for certain how much emotion there is involved. It's funny how this argument only works for the people who go for the negative interpretation, not the ones with positive interpretations.
ME: In this case the 'negative interpretation' is based on little but one person's nitpicking and bizarre logic. The positive interpretation makes a lot more sense because it can at least be supported by logical analysis.
TERO: Unfortunately for "you", there is a logic to my topics.
ME: There is a certain logic to it, but not one that carries any weight with anyone except you.
TERO: There are certain implications when some records are dedicated to Freddie and others aren't,
ME: You can imply a lot of things, but no one but you is taking them seriously. What does that tell you, that you are a lone genius who is somehow able to fathom some hidden logic behind a simple dedication on a record, or that maybe you've got it wrong and are taking all of this far, far too serioUsly and, perhaps, obsessively?
TERO: and there is a logic to why some Queen releases are attributed to "Queen Productions" while others are attributed to "Queen Touring"... The fact that you choose to take these things at face value without thinking about the reasoning behind them doesn't make the issues any more trivial than analysing the lyrics of the latest "Queen" song.
ME: There is in all probability legal and financial reasons for this, as was discussed in the thread. I don't take them at face value at all: in fact, it is probably one of the more boring subjects on Queenzone, and does very little to hold my attention. The reason you got so many replies is because of the bizarre interpretation you put on it, that "it's strange indeed to change the production company if Brian and Roger still consider themselves Queen" or "is it perhaps a question of artistic integrity and not wanting to be Queen after all"--- and so on. Your thread on the subject ostensibly seems to be about seeking knowledge, but they way you pose your questions (and your replies)is like many conspiracy theorists who ask people to commment on what they pose as "odd" or "strange" occurrences when in fact there is usually a simple and logical explanation that they refuse to accept.
A word of advice: a few years back I may have been the only one to support your position, not because I actually beleived it but because of frustration at Queen's lack of output, or not working with people I wanted them to work with. But i've realised something important. Brian may and Roger taylor will do what they want to do and not what we want them to do. They have demonstrated that over and over again. It is what is is and when you learn to accept that as I (mostly) have your relationship with what's left of Queen will be a happier one. They're not going to be around forever: enjoy it while you can and stop fretting over what they choose to call themselves or what they call their touring co. or indeed what small dedications they put on their cds to their former frontman.
Here's my opening post in this topic:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members.
If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.
The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band. [/QUOTE]
Pretty much everyone can agree on the first two points, and the third one is an unsubstantiated opinion, just like those other people have been posting in this topic.
Without that disagreement, this would be an "I agree" lovefest of the QPR fans.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What's more likely; that Q+PR are in a boardroom right now, planning on how they can trick us and manipulate us?
Or that they might feel like dedicating the album to someone that they worked with for 20 years?[/QUOTE]
It's more likely only as long as you think positive thoughts about Queen.
If you start taking into account how much of a business they have become and how little we know of the actual emotions these people have, it becomes just about as likely either way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A very, very flimsy point.
Why would you dedicate EACH ALBUM to the same person?? That is utterly ridiculous.
For a lot of musicians, the music tends to be somewhat topical with regard to what they are feeling when they make a bit of music.
It makes sense for some of the music (like "Nothing But Blue") to be about what's going on at the time, and for the first album following the death of a friend to carry a dedication to them.[/QUOTE]
This actually ties in with my point...
The first albums were dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. They clearly got over the issue of losing Freddie, and now we can start speculating why he's become a dedication again.
Some people think it's to appease a minority of the fans, some say it's a token gesture without any emotions behind it, and some say it's highly emotional. I would discredit the third option because they have gotten over the loss of Freddie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whether you call this new band Queen + Paul Rodgers, Good Company, or Sgt. Fucking Peppers, it's a new band borne out of the remnants of an old one, and I think it's more than fair to dedicate it to (or at least mention) an ex-member.
Use a bit of logic, for Christ's sake.[/QUOTE]
There is a bit of logic involved, whether you like it or not.
No one is denying that it's "more than fair" to dedicate the album to Freddie, and the logic is only in questioning the motives of that dedication.
My scenario isn't any more unlikely than "yours". You start from the assumption that the dedication is based on emotions instead of practical issues, and I start from the assumption that it's based on practical issues ("It's expected from them") and not based on emotions.
Neither of knows the feelings of the band, so both include an equal amount of assumptions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members.
If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.
The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band. [/QUOTE]
Pretty much everyone can agree on the first two points, and the third one is an unsubstantiated opinion, just like those other people have been posting in this topic.
Without that disagreement, this would be an "I agree" lovefest of the QPR fans.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What's more likely; that Q+PR are in a boardroom right now, planning on how they can trick us and manipulate us?
Or that they might feel like dedicating the album to someone that they worked with for 20 years?[/QUOTE]
It's more likely only as long as you think positive thoughts about Queen.
If you start taking into account how much of a business they have become and how little we know of the actual emotions these people have, it becomes just about as likely either way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A very, very flimsy point.
Why would you dedicate EACH ALBUM to the same person?? That is utterly ridiculous.
For a lot of musicians, the music tends to be somewhat topical with regard to what they are feeling when they make a bit of music.
It makes sense for some of the music (like "Nothing But Blue") to be about what's going on at the time, and for the first album following the death of a friend to carry a dedication to them.[/QUOTE]
This actually ties in with my point...
The first albums were dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. They clearly got over the issue of losing Freddie, and now we can start speculating why he's become a dedication again.
Some people think it's to appease a minority of the fans, some say it's a token gesture without any emotions behind it, and some say it's highly emotional. I would discredit the third option because they have gotten over the loss of Freddie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whether you call this new band Queen + Paul Rodgers, Good Company, or Sgt. Fucking Peppers, it's a new band borne out of the remnants of an old one, and I think it's more than fair to dedicate it to (or at least mention) an ex-member.
Use a bit of logic, for Christ's sake.[/QUOTE]
There is a bit of logic involved, whether you like it or not.
No one is denying that it's "more than fair" to dedicate the album to Freddie, and the logic is only in questioning the motives of that dedication.
My scenario isn't any more unlikely than "yours". You start from the assumption that the dedication is based on emotions instead of practical issues, and I start from the assumption that it's based on practical issues ("It's expected from them") and not based on emotions.
Neither of knows the feelings of the band, so both include an equal amount of assumptions.