Maybe Brian's Sampson, and after he lost his hair he also became blind. So, from then on, he started using wigs, and becoming a backing musician for an American Idol loser instead of willing to work with Rick Wakeman or Steve Vai.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Maybe Brian's Sampson, and after he lost his hair he also became blind. So, from then on, he started using wigs, and becoming a backing musician for an American Idol loser instead of willing to work with Rick Wakeman or Steve Vai.
[/QUOTE]
You really are a broken record. You've said these things far, far too many times...
1) Brian and Roger said Paul was Freddie's favourite singer as a marketing tactic
2) Brian isn't collaborating with whoever you think he should be collaborating with
3) There aren't 180 voices on BoRhap (although someone even showed you an alternative way to mathematically come to this conclusion a few weeks back)
Stop reiterating the same old tired points. You are so much better than this.
Sebastian · Member since
Why do you care anyway?
And just for the (broken) record:
1a. I'm not denying Paul's great.
1b. I'm not denying Fred probably admired him (there's nothing pre-2004 to confirm or deny it).
1c. I [i]am[/i] stating he was [i]not[/i] his favourite or one of his top idols, hence making the whole charade quite unethical.
1d. Why should Maylor resort to such ridiculous strategy? They're better than that.
2a. I'm not attacking people who admire 5ive, Robbie Williams, Pink or Adam Labert.
2b. I [i]am[/i], however, commenting on the fact that while Fred was alive (and shortly after he died), Brian and Roger collaborated with Michael Kamen, David Bowie, Steve Howe... now it's Pink, Britney and an American Idol loser. Hardly a progress IMO.
2c. Why should Maylor resort to such (good, but not good enough IMO) partnerships (PR aside)? They're better than that.
3a. I'm not denying that [i]Bo Rhap[/i] (or any other song for that matter) could've had literally hundreds of takes.
3b. I [i]am[/i], however, clearing that there are no 138, 160, 180 or 200 simultaneous voices. Even before the multitracks surfaced, I was always defending that theory. As Zeb cleverly pointed out, there's no point in doubling them that many times after certain 'saturation point' (my words, not Zeb's), where 200 wouldn't be different from 20. And, BTW, considering the (still rough compared to today's standards) audio technology, having that amount of bounced overdubs would've ruined the quality of the sound. Even if the whole transparent tape story happened to be true (which I still doubt, TBH), it still doesn't mean they actually recorded 180 simultaneous voices. BTW, many producers exaggerate when speaking about their records, and Roy was not an exception: just read what he said about the Darkness' sophomore album...
3c. If the topic arises twenty times, then I'll repeat the same thing twenty times. Mostly because each of those twenty, I learn a lot.
And by the way, you forgot loads of things in my [i]broken record[/i]:
* Roger did not compose [i]Innuendo.
[/i]* [i]You Don't Fool Me[/i] was not part of 'Hot Space' sessions.
* The fact Brian sings a one-minute [i]Hitman[/i] demo does not demonstrate he wrote the whole thing (or even that snippet).
* [i]Good Company[/i] was recorded with a baritone ukelele, not a ukelele banjo.
* The [i]Bo Rhap[/i] BBC documentary is sloppy to say the least.
* John did not play a Fender Rhodes on [i]Best Friend.[/i]
* There are no keyboard synths on [i]Another One Bites the Dust.
[/i]* Freddie's shitty solo album does not prove he was a shit composer.
* 'Saw V' was not [i]bad[/i] per se, but 'IV' is a hell of a lot better. My favourite's the sixth now, to be honest, I loved it.
* Late era Queen was not mainly Freddie, was not mainly Brian, was not mainly John and was not mainly Roger.
* The four of them could compose for instruments they were not too good performers on, and did so, many times.
And my most frequent bits of [i]broken record[/i], of which I'm very proud:
* Brian + Freddie + Roger are not Queen (they [i]were[/i] though, for some months or so).
* Brian + Freddie + John are not Queen.
* Brian + Roger + John are not Queen.
* Roger + Freddie + John are not Queen.
* Brian + Freddie are not Queen.
* Brian + Roger are not Queen.
* Brian + John are not Queen.
* Freddie+ Roger are not Queen.
* Freddie + John are not Queen.
* Roger + John are not Queen.
And at the end of the day, I'm not:
* Offending anybody.
* Imposing my point of view (whoever disagrees has all the right to).
* Forcing you (or anybody else) to read my [i]broken record[/i].
So Bob, you could either:
* Chase me on-line like a stalker, asking me to change my personality (something I've never asked you to do, BTW).
Or
* Respect my perspective, considering we've been over this in the past, and you know neither side's gonna switch.
Or:
* Refrain from reading anything I write (here or elsewhere), let alone reply.
Both the second and third choice seem perfect for me, while the first is only a waste of time for both sides. It's your call.
JoxerTheDeityPirate · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b]
I don't think it is a case of every topic being 'done to death', but, rather, there is not a lot of new stuff to talk about.
As a once 'serious' collector, I have lost all interest in repurchasing the same old material in 'new boxes' or re-packaging, as it just doesn't seem genuine any more.
To explain, when Freddie was alive and Queen were in their hay-day, then a contemporary new single, red vinyl or picture disc was indeed something special. Something worth tracking down and owning.
Now-a-days these new re-issues are deliberately printed as collector's items for the sake of it - and it is just not the same thing.
I guess it is like a stamp collector who owns a genuine 'Penny Black'. Once they have that in their collection, a 'Penny Black Commemorative' issue is not the same. In other words, why settle for the substitute if you can have the real thing?
Now, I am not knocking that type of collector - each to their own, but for me, it was always about the music.
Sure I have other memorabilla, books, mags etc, but that was always secondary to the music.
Perhaps if Queen were to provide a few teasers - whether an anthology box set, special CD's with bonus tracks, or even the odd internet download - then perhaps my zeal may be reignited.
Until then, I guess it's just trying to recapture former glories, and that seems more difficult with each new crap product released.[/QUOTE]
couldn't agree more.
in the 80's and 90's I used to be hunting for all new limited editions and rarities as they came onto the market via Record Collector magazine or music fairs but since about 95/96 i've either got all i want or started to see the same ol' stuff repackaged as something new so my interest as waned
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
So Bob, you could either:
* Chase me on-line like a stalker, asking me to change my personality (something I've never asked you to do, BTW).
[/QUOTE]
I'm not asking you to change your personality. I just think that reiterating the same points over and over again verbatim makes for repetitiveness and, ultimately, bad reading.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
So Bob, you could either:
* Chase me on-line like a stalker, asking me to change my personality (something I've never asked you to do, BTW).
[/QUOTE]
I'm not asking you to change your personality. I just think that reiterating the same points over and over again verbatim makes for repetitiveness and, ultimately, bad reading.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you're asking me to change my personality. I'm saying you [i]could[/i] do that if you wanted to, but that'd only annoy the hell out of me, you and people who read those threads.
So, if I want to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat that PR was not FM's favourite singer, that BM could pick much better musicians to collaborate with and that there are no 180 simultaneous voices in [i]Bo Rhap[/i], then that's my prerogative. Agree? Fine. Disagree? Fine.
But just as I don't tell you what to do or what not to do, I'll apreciate if you return the courtesy.
Moreover, during this last couple of weeks I've taken part in 6 or 7 threads, and in most of them you've been replying to my posts, sometimes accusing me of having an agenda (funny you should say that when you can't read minds, and then complain about me not using 'IMO' or something to that effect), asking me to 'stop' doing something (have you ever heard of the word 'please'?), etc. That almost qualifies as stalking.
And I wonder: have I ever done that to your posts?
If so, please tell me where. If not, then please (you see, I do know about that word) don't tell me what to do or what not to do. If I ever offend you, your nationality, ethnicity, sex, religion, occupation or physical features, you've got all the right to complain (and I should be kicked out of the forum immediately). But otherwise, I'm not doing any harm when (if) I repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat that PR was not FM's favourite singer, that BM could pick much better musicians to collaborate with and that there are no 180 simultaneous voices in [i]Bo Rhap[/i].
john bodega · Member since
It's not stalking, exactly. For him to be stalking you, it'd have to take place in an area that you might frequent but one which he would have absolutely no other reason to be in. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Neighbours can't exactly stalk each other; they merely co-exist in a small area and consequently they see more of one another than they'd like to. Trouble ensues. But that's not stalking - you guys just both use the same forum.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Now, if Bob follows you to a poodle discussion board to tell you that there WERE 180 simultaneous poodles in competition on Sunday's dog show extravaganza, then that might be stalking.[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
Of course, live and let live is always the best way.
But I just think you're taking this all a bit too seriously. I'm just making observations and you're taking them far too personally. If you're confident that you're always doing the right thing, you should have no need to react so strongly.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Of course, live and let live is always the best way.
But I just think you're taking this all a bit too seriously. I'm just making observations and you're taking them far too personally. If you're confident that you're always doing the right thing, you should have no need to react so strongly.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not [i]always[/i] doing the right thing. Nobody is.
Reacting strongly would be telling you to fuck off (which would be totally uncalled for). This is simply, as you say, live and let live. D'you think I'm a broken record? Fine. Just stay away from it if it bothers you.
And by the way:
* Paul Rodgers was NOT Freddie's favourite singer.
* Brian sort of messed up his choice of collaborators lately.
* There are no 180 simultaneous voices in [i]Bo Rhap[/i].
Zeb: Good point. But there [i]is[/i] the concept of cyber-stalking. I don't think Bob's doing it per se, but he's slowly getting there.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Accusing someone of cyber-stalking (a very serious infraction of privacy) without any kind of proof is a form of slander. Watch where you're going with that one, my friend.
We're discussing a band. Let's not let it get out of hand.
Sebastian · Member since
I didn't accuse you. I wrote: '[b]I don't think Bob's doing it per se[/b], but he's slowly getting there'. And I stand by it. Proof? The amount of comments I've made these last few days that have absolutely [i]nothing[/i] to do with you, but to which you've readily replied each time with stronger (direct or indirect) labels. Certainly not cyberstalking, certainly far from it but... as I said, slowly getting there.
But d'you know how can you keep this broken-record-with-an-agenda-to-demonise-Brian-and-Roger-plus-a-criminal-intention-to-slander-you from bothering you? By:
* Not telling me what to do (unless I'm directly insulting you, which I'm not).
* Respecting my POVs and whether I want to repeat them five, twenty or a hundred times (or maybe a hundred and eighty).
* Ignoring my posts if they're too problematic for you.
* And by the way, it was you who moved the topic away from the band (my comment on BM's choice of collaborators, even if it annoys you, is related to the band) by telling I was a broken record. And now you're the one complaining about it...
PS: Accusing me of having an agenda against B+R without any kind of proof (besides your own speculation) is also a form of slander. How is that different?
PS2: Accusing me of accusing you of cyberstalking without any kind of proof is also a form of slander.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
PS: Accusing me of having an agenda against B+R without any kind of proof (besides your own speculation) is also a form of slander.
[/QUOTE]
Holding an opinion about a musician is an arrestable offense, like stalking?
Now this is starting to get out of hand. In summary, I gave you some constructive criticism which you reacted strongly to, so now I know better for next time. Let's move on, please.
john bodega · Member since
I agree, you guys are above this. This is a cyber-clusterfuck.
4 x Vision · Member since
Agreed, kiss and make up... for the sake of the threads, cos you are both two of the biggest contributors to this site.
I've been in one of these situations before with another QZer and they go absolutely nowhere. Now... I'd like to think that I respect that person's opinions and vice versa.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
PS: Accusing me of having an agenda against B+R without any kind of proof (besides your own speculation) is also a form of slander.
[/QUOTE]
Holding an opinion about a musician is an arrestable offense, like stalking?
Now this is starting to get out of hand. In summary, I gave you some constructive criticism which you reacted strongly to, so now I know better for next time. Let's move on, please.
[/QUOTE]
Calling somebody a broken record is not constructive criticism. And telling you not to tell me what to do is not reacting strongly. Things would've been very different if I'd told you to fuck off, [i]that[/i] would be reacting strongly.
It's funny, anyway, how you only reply to the PS but completely overlook my explanation of how I was [b]NOT[/b] calling you a cyberstalker (though I [i]am[/i] stating you're getting there at this pace), and the PS2 as well.
