[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But you know, they cant sell the album on their own. They are dependent on a long line of companies, retailers and marketers. All of which have their own routines of working.And Queen is one of the biggest bands in the world, Id be surprised if Brian and Roger even knows about a lot of things that happen in QP.[/QUOTE]
Who says they even have to sell loads of albums? :P
People call ME cynical, but I at least entertain the possibility that artists could be making art just for their own pleasure, and sell it to whoever happens to like what they make, however they make it.
That IS what other artists do, you know. ;)[/QUOTE]
If they were doing that (i.e. just in it for the art), then wouldn't they just have it as a free download on QPR / QOL and stuff the billboards?
I think people do underestimate the influence of the likes of Jim Beach. Brian is an artist, certainly not a politician (soapbox tells us this!) and not a businessman I think. I'm sure he has people to look after his interests (lawyer, accountant etc). once upon a time it was John looking after the business angle.
But as someone said, I don't think Brian or Roger get involved in the "business" end. They leave that to Jim Beach and EMI I suspect.
And is this album really as "Queen" (as in JD and Fred's estate having a say?) I'd be surprised. I know it's labelled Queen+PR, but is this incarnation of Queen going to pay royalties to JD and FM estate when they've not had input? I very much doubt it.
So you would expect to have PR and his manager (Jim Beach equivalent) part of the decision making process, so even if Roger voted with Brian, he could easily be outvoted.
Veto by Brian or Roger? No. Do they retain ownership of their music etc, yes I expect so. But does that mean that a record company will let them make the decisions on marketing? No. Do Brian and Roger want to be concerned with the difficulties of sales and marketing strategy? I doubt it (although ironically so many artists are leaving EMI due to their lack of faith in EMI on that).
So, Brian could well have stuck to his guns as per his views on billboards, but was indeed out voted.
And finally, it is possible to form certain views later in life. While being busy recording and touring the world over 3 decades, I'm sure Brian never got involved in if billboards were used, an probably never even gave it a second thought. But he's older, the world is a different place, and he's gained a perception that these things are bad. And I do think he's talking about the moving image billboards and that they are a hazard to drivers, and a bit of a blot on the landscape.
I have to agree as I cannot stand animated ads that adorn so many web pages these days. They hurt my eyes and distract from the content I am trying to read. So such moving ads would probably annoy me too.
Anyway, that's my thought on it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
That IS what other artists do, you know. ;)[/QUOTE]
No it isnt.;)[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Prince is a good example of this.
-He releases material from instrumental jazz to the most commercial pop music.
-He gives away his latest album with a newspaper and pisses off his UK record label.
-He demands websites like YouTube to remove his material even though others think it's a great place to advertise.
-In concerts he has a rolling setlist of more than 50 songs, and doesn't play just his own hits.
-He only performs in one European city because he wants it that way.
And this is just from the fast five years. Need I go on?
This is what a true artist does when he has nothing to prove anymore:
He releases what he wants when he wants, and performs where he wants and whatever he wants.
THAT'S artistic integrity, and something "Queen" should take a lesson from.
That IS what other artists do, you know. ;)[/QUOTE]
No it isnt.;)[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Prince is a good example of this.
-He releases material from instrumental jazz to the most commercial pop music.
-He gives away his latest album with a newspaper and pisses off his UK record label.
-He demands websites like YouTube to remove his material even though others think it's a great place to advertise.
-In concerts he has a rolling setlist of more than 50 songs, and doesn't play just his own hits.
-He only performs in one European city because he wants it that way.
And this is just from the fast five years. Need I go on?
This is what a true artist does when he has nothing to prove anymore:
He releases what he wants when he wants, and performs where he wants and whatever he wants.
THAT'S artistic integrity, and something "Queen" should take a lesson from.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
That IS what other artists do, you know. ;)[/QUOTE]
No it isnt.;)[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Prince is a good example of this.
-He releases material from instrumental jazz to the most commercial pop music.
-He gives away his latest album with a newspaper and pisses off his UK record label.
-He demands websites like YouTube to remove his material even though others think it's a great place to advertise.
-In concerts he has a rolling setlist of more than 50 songs, and doesn't play just his own hits.
-He only performs in one European city because he wants it that way.
And this is just from the fast five years. Need I go on?
This is what a true artist does when he has nothing to prove anymore:
He releases what he wants when he wants, and performs where he wants and whatever he wants.
THAT'S artistic integrity, and something "Queen" should take a lesson from.[/QUOTE]
Come on, money rules the music biz. I dont see what this has got to do with the argument about the advertisements though. Thats a completely different thing than what music you want to record.My point is that, it is not Roger and Brian alone in a room that decides what happens. There are lots of people involved and Im sure that most things are decided without them being involved at all.
That IS what other artists do, you know. ;)[/QUOTE]
No it isnt.;)[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. Prince is a good example of this.
-He releases material from instrumental jazz to the most commercial pop music.
-He gives away his latest album with a newspaper and pisses off his UK record label.
-He demands websites like YouTube to remove his material even though others think it's a great place to advertise.
-In concerts he has a rolling setlist of more than 50 songs, and doesn't play just his own hits.
-He only performs in one European city because he wants it that way.
And this is just from the fast five years. Need I go on?
This is what a true artist does when he has nothing to prove anymore:
He releases what he wants when he wants, and performs where he wants and whatever he wants.
THAT'S artistic integrity, and something "Queen" should take a lesson from.[/QUOTE]
Come on, money rules the music biz. I dont see what this has got to do with the argument about the advertisements though. Thats a completely different thing than what music you want to record.My point is that, it is not Roger and Brian alone in a room that decides what happens. There are lots of people involved and Im sure that most things are decided without them being involved at all.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]Come on, money rules the music biz. I dont see what this has got to do with the argument about the advertisements though. Thats a completely different thing than what music you want to record.My point is that, it is not Roger and Brian alone in a room that decides what happens. There are lots of people involved and Im sure that most things are decided without them being involved at all.[/QUOTE]
The FINAL decision lies on the members of Queen.
If they want to they can let others make decisions for them, but they can also set the ground rules for the people who work for them.
If Brian May feels passionately about the advertisements, he will make it a point in all their PR contracts to say "no advertisements". If he doesn't feel passionately about it, he'll let somebody else make all the decisions for him.
The FINAL decision lies on the members of Queen.
If they want to they can let others make decisions for them, but they can also set the ground rules for the people who work for them.
If Brian May feels passionately about the advertisements, he will make it a point in all their PR contracts to say "no advertisements". If he doesn't feel passionately about it, he'll let somebody else make all the decisions for him.
As far as I'm concerned I'd love to see advertisements for the new album all over (everyone's) town! haha!
I want to see their face
on every TV screen!
:-)
I want to see their face
on every TV screen!
:-)
Oberon, re:
--And is this album really as "Queen" (as in JD and Fred's estate having a say?) I'd be surprised. I know it's labelled Queen+PR, but is this incarnation of Queen going to pay royalties to JD and FM estate when they've not had input? I very much doubt it.
All depends on how the Queen name is registered as a trademark. Remember Paul has only recently played a show under the Bad Company name in order to keep the rights of the name..........
I would assume that a % *IS* paid to John and to Freddie's estate in order that the Queen name can be used more out of a professional courtesy; a nod to two influential people behind the reason that Brian, Roger and Paul are doing this in the first place.
--And is this album really as "Queen" (as in JD and Fred's estate having a say?) I'd be surprised. I know it's labelled Queen+PR, but is this incarnation of Queen going to pay royalties to JD and FM estate when they've not had input? I very much doubt it.
All depends on how the Queen name is registered as a trademark. Remember Paul has only recently played a show under the Bad Company name in order to keep the rights of the name..........
I would assume that a % *IS* paid to John and to Freddie's estate in order that the Queen name can be used more out of a professional courtesy; a nod to two influential people behind the reason that Brian, Roger and Paul are doing this in the first place.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Fuck you people! I say ; the best promotion tool would be BRIAN MAY'S FACE, projected onto the moon.
That's it, right now. Screw electronic billboards; BRIAN MAY'S FACE. THE MOON.
Man I'm excited already.[/QUOTE]
O.o I like your crazy thoughts.
That's it, right now. Screw electronic billboards; BRIAN MAY'S FACE. THE MOON.
Man I'm excited already.[/QUOTE]
O.o I like your crazy thoughts.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Come on, money rules the music biz. I dont see what this has got to do with the argument about the advertisements though. Thats a completely different thing than what music you want to record.My point is that, it is not Roger and Brian alone in a room that decides what happens. There are lots of people involved and Im sure that most things are decided without them being involved at all.[/QUOTE]
The FINAL decision lies on the members of Queen.
If they want to they can let others make decisions for them, but they can also set the ground rules for the people who work for them.
If Brian May feels passionately about the advertisements, he will make it a point in all their PR contracts to say "no advertisements". If he doesn't feel passionately about it, he'll let somebody else make all the decisions for him.[/QUOTE]
That's incredibly naive. They're not the all powerful artists you think. Their record company needs to make money. You know, the people they're signed with? And they make certain things possible for the band.
In other words, there's no way a record company would sign an artist (even Queen) with a "no advertisements" in their contract. That's just ridiculous! And yes, that even means if they only disliked these types of boards. And once more, we know they did debate it and all got a say in it - hence how we first came to know Brian was against it, but failed to stop it. End of story. Stop trying to put them in a bad light...again!
Adam.
The FINAL decision lies on the members of Queen.
If they want to they can let others make decisions for them, but they can also set the ground rules for the people who work for them.
If Brian May feels passionately about the advertisements, he will make it a point in all their PR contracts to say "no advertisements". If he doesn't feel passionately about it, he'll let somebody else make all the decisions for him.[/QUOTE]
That's incredibly naive. They're not the all powerful artists you think. Their record company needs to make money. You know, the people they're signed with? And they make certain things possible for the band.
In other words, there's no way a record company would sign an artist (even Queen) with a "no advertisements" in their contract. That's just ridiculous! And yes, that even means if they only disliked these types of boards. And once more, we know they did debate it and all got a say in it - hence how we first came to know Brian was against it, but failed to stop it. End of story. Stop trying to put them in a bad light...again!
Adam.
Adam,
Atlantic signed Led Zep with a no singles clause - so why not?
The artist can do exactly what he or she wants with their material providing they are not ALREADY contracted and obligated.
Would be interesting to know whether this album has been done to complete an outstanding Queen contractual obligation and that the use of the Queen name (as opposed to the three of them going out and setting up a new band) is strictly to comply with existing contractual terms.
Atlantic signed Led Zep with a no singles clause - so why not?
The artist can do exactly what he or she wants with their material providing they are not ALREADY contracted and obligated.
Would be interesting to know whether this album has been done to complete an outstanding Queen contractual obligation and that the use of the Queen name (as opposed to the three of them going out and setting up a new band) is strictly to comply with existing contractual terms.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: QUOTE]
That's incredibly nieve. They're not the all powerful artists you think. Their record company needs to make money. You know, the people they're signed with? And they make certain things possible for the band.
In other words, there's no way a record company would sign an artist (even Queen) with a "no advertisements" in their contract. That's just ridiculous! [/QUOTE]
Adam, that's incredibly naive. No, "they're" not all powerful artists. However, unless the surviving Beatles decide to release an album, Queen has more clout with their record company than any band alive, save maybe Coldplay or U2. This video billboard technology didn't exist when Queen signed a contract. As Benn says, some groups have had no singles (Led Zeppelin) or no videos (Pearl Jam, at a time when videos were enormously important) clauses in their contract. And as Brian said that he was outvoted on the issue, it obviously wasn't a contractual obligation being forced upon them. Paul, Roger, and Jim Beach, or whoever QPL is had a chance to take a stand and decided that they wanted the publicity.
There's something called the courage of your convictions that determine your worth as a man or woman that should trump money every day. Roger was so disturbed about the Sun's relentless targeting of Freddie that he wrote a song about how odious he thought the paper and Rupert Murdoch. However, not odious enough to prevent QPL from doing a campaign with the Sun to promote WWRY. If I felt that a company contributed to making one of my great friends and greatest colleague's last days on earth a living hell, I would never, ever, ever do business with them. But QPL did. That is so unspeakedly cowardly and sad that money trumps conviction in multi-millionaires. If a cigarete company wanted to give away tickets to WWRY, QPL would do it and Brian would hold his nose and say he was outvoted. So he's right, he is a hypocrite, and that's sad because he talks about changing this shit, and he is in a position to do it, but can't or won't. Then again, Brian always, always, always says he's earned the right to use the name Queen, which he has, but on the other hand talks about how fresh and new this incarnation is. If it is, don't call yourselves Queen!!!! Take on the world like a teenager who wants his music to be heard. Don't hide behind a brand.
That's incredibly nieve. They're not the all powerful artists you think. Their record company needs to make money. You know, the people they're signed with? And they make certain things possible for the band.
In other words, there's no way a record company would sign an artist (even Queen) with a "no advertisements" in their contract. That's just ridiculous! [/QUOTE]
Adam, that's incredibly naive. No, "they're" not all powerful artists. However, unless the surviving Beatles decide to release an album, Queen has more clout with their record company than any band alive, save maybe Coldplay or U2. This video billboard technology didn't exist when Queen signed a contract. As Benn says, some groups have had no singles (Led Zeppelin) or no videos (Pearl Jam, at a time when videos were enormously important) clauses in their contract. And as Brian said that he was outvoted on the issue, it obviously wasn't a contractual obligation being forced upon them. Paul, Roger, and Jim Beach, or whoever QPL is had a chance to take a stand and decided that they wanted the publicity.
There's something called the courage of your convictions that determine your worth as a man or woman that should trump money every day. Roger was so disturbed about the Sun's relentless targeting of Freddie that he wrote a song about how odious he thought the paper and Rupert Murdoch. However, not odious enough to prevent QPL from doing a campaign with the Sun to promote WWRY. If I felt that a company contributed to making one of my great friends and greatest colleague's last days on earth a living hell, I would never, ever, ever do business with them. But QPL did. That is so unspeakedly cowardly and sad that money trumps conviction in multi-millionaires. If a cigarete company wanted to give away tickets to WWRY, QPL would do it and Brian would hold his nose and say he was outvoted. So he's right, he is a hypocrite, and that's sad because he talks about changing this shit, and he is in a position to do it, but can't or won't. Then again, Brian always, always, always says he's earned the right to use the name Queen, which he has, but on the other hand talks about how fresh and new this incarnation is. If it is, don't call yourselves Queen!!!! Take on the world like a teenager who wants his music to be heard. Don't hide behind a brand.
Very many naive posts here. This is like any company there is a lot of people from different places involved to get what is in the end a product to the shops and make sure it sells as much as possible. There is a lot of people involved in this that are paid to make it as profitable as it possibly can and that make their living out of it. A lot of people have an interest in this album and a lot of people take a chance in distributing it. Q+PR is in no way in the position do as they please in regards to this. Especially in a situation like this album which is a commercial gamble, it might sink like a stone, something that everyone is aware of. My point is that I can EASILY see a situation where Brian gets outvoted on this.
Someone mentioned U2, which are a band that hardly have a meeting were only the four members and the management are involved. It is the same with Queen or I for one would be very surprised.
Ive written this before as well, if youre looking for some kind of punk-ethic then this is the wrong band for you. Queen were ALWAYS a very business-conscious band. I actually think Brian seems to be the most "artist" of them. But well well when you are looking for things to complain about some one you obviously dislikes strongly then anything will do I guess..
Someone mentioned U2, which are a band that hardly have a meeting were only the four members and the management are involved. It is the same with Queen or I for one would be very surprised.
Ive written this before as well, if youre looking for some kind of punk-ethic then this is the wrong band for you. Queen were ALWAYS a very business-conscious band. I actually think Brian seems to be the most "artist" of them. But well well when you are looking for things to complain about some one you obviously dislikes strongly then anything will do I guess..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Adam,
Atlantic signed Led Zep with a no singles clause - so why not?
The artist can do exactly what he or she wants with their material providing they are not ALREADY contracted and obligated.[/QUOTE]
Hang on - are you referring to when Led Zep were initially signed? Or is this a recent signing? If it were recent, I'd be very very surprised at that. However, if we are talking about their initial signing, that explains it. Different time and different values.
Queen will have renewed their contract over and over with EMI since their initial first appearance with them. So, it will have been changed and modified/updated. And will, no doubt, include certain things specific to the record companies needs. It's a partnership.
Oh btw, remember that documentary where Brian or Roger said they used to hide their tracks because, they were keeping them out of the execs hands? Just shows what could happen back then. Not sure if that's still the case nowadays!!
Now, back onto topic!
I see Brian says that it wasn't the record company's fault. He openly says, "I can only blame us." Someone else wanted them. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Roger.
Adam.
Atlantic signed Led Zep with a no singles clause - so why not?
The artist can do exactly what he or she wants with their material providing they are not ALREADY contracted and obligated.[/QUOTE]
Hang on - are you referring to when Led Zep were initially signed? Or is this a recent signing? If it were recent, I'd be very very surprised at that. However, if we are talking about their initial signing, that explains it. Different time and different values.
Queen will have renewed their contract over and over with EMI since their initial first appearance with them. So, it will have been changed and modified/updated. And will, no doubt, include certain things specific to the record companies needs. It's a partnership.
Oh btw, remember that documentary where Brian or Roger said they used to hide their tracks because, they were keeping them out of the execs hands? Just shows what could happen back then. Not sure if that's still the case nowadays!!
Now, back onto topic!
I see Brian says that it wasn't the record company's fault. He openly says, "I can only blame us." Someone else wanted them. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Roger.
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ive written this before as well, if youre looking for some kind of punk-ethic then this is the wrong band for you. Queen were ALWAYS a very business-conscious band. I actually think Brian seems to be the most "artist" of them. But well well when you are looking for things to complain about some one you obviously dislikes strongly then anything will do I guess..[/QUOTE]
I'm not expecting punk ethics (whatever than means, considering that Sex Pistols was a manufactured advertisement to begin with!), but I am expecting powerful men to stick up for what they personally believe in. Quite simple really.
If Brian believes in not using giant colourful animated advertisements, he should demand no such adverts to be used with this album (and his bandmates should appreciate his opinion).
If Roger believes in boycotting the Sun because of their deplorable reporting, he shouldn't use the magazine to advertise his own products (and that should be acceptable to the the others).
It might cause them make only £8 million out of this album and tour instead of £10 million, but it would make their audience appreciate their morality a bit more, a perhaps even convince us they are actually honest with their public outcries.
I know it would work for me better than flip-flopping opinions for any profit.
I'm not expecting punk ethics (whatever than means, considering that Sex Pistols was a manufactured advertisement to begin with!), but I am expecting powerful men to stick up for what they personally believe in. Quite simple really.
If Brian believes in not using giant colourful animated advertisements, he should demand no such adverts to be used with this album (and his bandmates should appreciate his opinion).
If Roger believes in boycotting the Sun because of their deplorable reporting, he shouldn't use the magazine to advertise his own products (and that should be acceptable to the the others).
It might cause them make only £8 million out of this album and tour instead of £10 million, but it would make their audience appreciate their morality a bit more, a perhaps even convince us they are actually honest with their public outcries.
I know it would work for me better than flip-flopping opinions for any profit.
I'm surprised that this is an issue.
Most of the train stations on my local line have installed big monoliths that house posters on either side of them.
And do you know; they had to remove BINS to do this? The bins were replaced about a week later, but I couldn't get over how retarded this was... taking out something as useful and as functional as a bin, to put in giant ads for TV shows that nobody even likes.
A great, 9 foot high monolith that also carries warnings against vandalism (because it's a problem here). I wonder if my government has any idea how tempted I was to kick the shit out of one of these bastard things?
Point is... advertising is damned annoying, but we all have to put up with it. It'll be a cold day in hell before that changes and we've had billboards for decades, so get used to it.
As I've said before; I don't think Q+PR is going far enough. Project Brian's face onto the Moon.
It has to happen.
Most of the train stations on my local line have installed big monoliths that house posters on either side of them.
And do you know; they had to remove BINS to do this? The bins were replaced about a week later, but I couldn't get over how retarded this was... taking out something as useful and as functional as a bin, to put in giant ads for TV shows that nobody even likes.
A great, 9 foot high monolith that also carries warnings against vandalism (because it's a problem here). I wonder if my government has any idea how tempted I was to kick the shit out of one of these bastard things?
Point is... advertising is damned annoying, but we all have to put up with it. It'll be a cold day in hell before that changes and we've had billboards for decades, so get used to it.
As I've said before; I don't think Q+PR is going far enough. Project Brian's face onto the Moon.
It has to happen.
Which face? the one in your avatar? :)