(untitled)

Sir GH wrote:

 



Mr. Britt wrote:



Kansas sucks. I'd rather have a Britney Spears album than a Kansas album. "Dust In The Wind" is a terrible song, and the only one I can even remember by Kansas. Totally pitiful.

Why would you rather have an entire Britney Spears album over an entire Kansas album if you admit to never hearing an entire Kansas album?

 



Maybe he LOVES Britney Spears' music :)

LOL

Wiley wrote:

Sir GH wrote:

 







Mr. Britt wrote:







Kansas sucks. I'd rather have a Britney Spears album than a Kansas album. "Dust In The Wind" is a terrible song, and the only one I can even remember by Kansas. Totally pitiful.

Why would you rather have an entire Britney Spears album over an entire Kansas album if you admit to never hearing an entire Kansas album?

 







Maybe he LOVES Britney Spears' music :)

I bet his favourite is 'Not a girl, not yet a woman'.

BlazeGoldmine wrote:







I think what bugs me the most isn't that he called Freddie an asshole. It was he said he had more of an ego than he had talent.

 Exactly! As I said earlier on, he has no right to lessen Freddie's talent. Freddie was a genius, something that Walsh certainly is not, and to try to suggest that his ego was bigger than his talent is absurd, offensive and just shows sour grapes. Walsh doesn't have to like the guy (although bringing it up years after Freddie's death is pretty low), but to attack Freddie's talent? No, that just won't do.

Amazon wrote:

BlazeGoldmine wrote:















I think what bugs me the most isn't that he called Freddie an asshole. It was he said he had more of an ego than he had talent.

Exactly! As I said earlier on, he has no right to lessen Freddie's talent. Freddie was a genius, something that Walsh certainly is not, and to try to suggest that his ego was bigger than his talent is absurd, offensive and just shows sour grapes. Walsh doesn't have to like the guy (although bringing it up years after Freddie's death is pretty low), but to attack Freddie's talent? No, that just won't do.

Freddie = Talent
[/QUOTE]




[/QUOTE]

It's always possible to have an ego bigger than one's talent.  What level of talent justifies rude or insensitive behaviour towards others?  If that's what Steve Walsh perceived, then it's a valid statement for him. It's worth remembering the tour Kansa was on was only three Queen albums in.  Was Freddie really already an unassailable genius in early 1975? I think some pretty wonderful and formative things happend beyond that time that wrote much of the Mercury legend we know today. Walsh may be a bland twit of sorts, but it's never going to be outrageous that he had a poor opinion of Freddie or anybody else.

GratefulFan wrote:







It's always possible to have an ego bigger than one's talent.  What level of talent justifies rude or insensitive behaviour towards others?  If that's what Steve Walsh perceived, then it's a valid statement for him. It's worth remembering the tour Kansa was on was only three Queen albums in.  Was Freddie really already an unassailable genius in early 1975? I think some pretty wonderful and formative things happend beyond that time that wrote much of the Mercury legend we know today. Walsh may be a bland twit of sorts, but it's never going to be outrageous that he had a poor opinion of Freddie or anybody else.

It is possible to have a bigger ego than your talent, but not Freddie's case (at least not to me). If I was the lead singer in a legendary rock band with dozens of hit singles to my name (which Freddie had), and sold millions of albums, then yes, I would have an ego (everyone will, don't say you don't). But since I'm not an asshole in the general sense, I would keep my ego under control. Maybe Freddie started getting the "lead singer disease" early because when Queen was in its early years, the hit singles were "Seven Seas of Rhye", "Now I'm Here", "Liar", "Killer Queen," etc. That early success got to Freddie and he became a diva. Of course, he matured and the "lead singer disease" disappeared before it did any sort of damage. I've listened/read dozens of Freddie's interviews, and he comes off as a decent, kind, and intelligent guy with a sense of humor. In Walsh's interviews, he's quite the opposite: He claims that he doesn't know anything about Styx, Yes, and other 70s prog rock bands in Kansas' vein (I call BS on that statement), and he personally hates touring, but has to "make money."
[/QUOTE]
I think it's safe to say that Freddie was probably a bit of an asshole in Queen's first years, but was smart enough to realize that he would looked at negatively, so he matured, and grew out of the prima donna attitude (all the asshole/prima donna stories I hear about Freddie are mostly from his earlier years in the band).



































[/QUOTE]

It may be worth noting that Freddie was known for having a very tongue in cheek good time with the whole diva thing, . Perhaps Mr Walsh didn't get share Freddie's sense of humor?
In any case, I am willing to accept the fact that not everyone loved Freddie. In fact, truthfully, I am surprised that more negativity hasn't come out from other artists about Freddie(though I may or may not have sensed some teeth gritting from David Bowie and Phil Collins when speaking about Freddie during some of the Queen documentaries). It seems that when an artist passes, all sorts of folks like to come out of the woodwork with horror stories about the bad behavior of said artist.
I'll admit to being a casual Kansas fan, and I suppose Mr Walsh is entitled to his opinion, though I agree it is unkind to express them about someone who can certainly not defend oneself.

GratefulFan wrote:



It's always possible to have an ego bigger than one's talent.  What level of talent justifies rude or insensitive behaviour towards others?  If that's what Steve Walsh perceived, then it's a valid statement for him. It's worth remembering the tour Kansa was on was only three Queen albums in.  Was Freddie really already an unassailable genius in early 1975? I think some pretty wonderful and formative things happend beyond that time that wrote much of the Mercury legend we know today. Walsh may be a bland twit of sorts, but it's never going to be outrageous that he had a poor opinion of Freddie or anybody else.

I would say that Freddie became an unassailable genius with ANATO, but was already on the way to becoming one after Queen II and SHA. That said, I do agree that no amount of talent can justify extreme rude or insensitive behaviour. If Freddie was being an arsehole, then he was an arsehole and no talent can justify that. But here's the thing; even if Freddie was an arsehole, one would have to acknowledge his talent. For example, I think that John Lennon could sometimes act like an absolute prick, but he was a magnificent musician. Similarly, Paul's treatment of George wasn't always exemplary but Paul is a genius. Axl Rose is one of my favourite singers and is IMO an absolute freak, but he is not someone whom I would want my sister, or niece, to date. If Walsh had said something along the lines of 'He was a bloody talented performer but he was a real arsehole when I met him' that would be one thing. Instead he denied Freddie's talent which I think is crossing the line. He implied that Freddie wasn't talented, that he was just a prima donna with more ego than talent; and I think if anybody is the arsehole, it's Steve Walsh.
 

He wanted to cross-pollinate and actually smash a mirror over the head of each and every black person that could not attend his Sun City gigs, but the tour budget simply didn't allow for it.  They talk about it in the 1989 interview.

Well, to his credit, this is not the first time I read someone stating that Freddie was either an asshole, a diva or someone very hard to deal with. And he does come across as one in many interviews.

He was a fairly talented pop/rock vocalist and composer, but some people tend to deify the guy. I don't like using this word, but ok, he may have been a genius in what he did - pop music for the masses. Pretty much like Michael Jackson. 

Whether he was a musical genius full stop, that's a different issue, which I'm not willing to discuss here.

The quote seems accurate as to Freddie's character at the time - he couldn't accept criticism back in the early 70's and had some ridiculous fights with journalists who had criticized him respectfully.

And that's part of the reason why I like him. I just can't stand these do-gooders, crippling bores who set out to generously save the humankind, such as Bono Vox. The Al Gores and Obamas of the world, in short. 

Nowadays a guy can't say "fuck" on stage without an association of environment-friendly fans coming up to protest his behavior. 

And I just get bored.

-----

By the way, Kansas was a great band.

Its good to see you posting again, Yara [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img]

ParisNair wrote:

Its good to see you posting again, Yara [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img]

Hey. Thanks a lot. Nice to see you guys too.

I'm so happy that holidays finally began!

The website is looking great!
*Hugs*
Yara

Amazon wrote:

I would say that Freddie became an unassailable genius with ANATO, but was already on the way to becoming one after Queen II and SHA. That said, I do agree that no amount of talent can justify extreme rude or insensitive behaviour. If Freddie was being an arsehole, then he was an arsehole and no talent can justify that. But here's the thing; even if Freddie was an arsehole, one would have to acknowledge his talent. For example, I think that John Lennon could sometimes act like an absolute prick, but he was a magnificent musician. Similarly, Paul's treatment of George wasn't always exemplary but Paul is a genius. Axl Rose is one of my favourite singers and is IMO an absolute freak, but he is not someone whom I would want my sister, or niece, to date. If Walsh had said something along the lines of 'He was a bloody talented performer but he was a real arsehole when I met him' that would be one thing. Instead he denied Freddie's talent which I think is crossing the line. He implied that Freddie wasn't talented, that he was just a prima donna with more ego than talent; and I think if anybody is the arsehole, it's Steve Walsh.
 

I think you're extrapolating Walsh's remarks beyond where they were meant to go.  What he said, in the context of a question about 1975, was that Freddie was 'an asshole'.  Only when pushed on it did he qualify that with 'prima donna', which is something those closest to Freddie over most of his adult life have asserted as well.  His comments about ego and talent only came to qualify prima donna as not a good thing.  He never said directly or indirectly that Freddie had no talent.  What was said was that  in Walsh's view, during a discreet period of time that Walsh is qualified to comment on, Freddie's ego outstripped his talent and apparently made things unpleasant for some people.   I accept that.

GratefulFan wrote:

Amazon wrote:



I would say that Freddie became an unassailable genius with ANATO, but was already on the way to becoming one after Queen II and SHA. That said, I do agree that no amount of talent can justify extreme rude or insensitive behaviour. If Freddie was being an arsehole, then he was an arsehole and no talent can justify that. But here's the thing; even if Freddie was an arsehole, one would have to acknowledge his talent. For example, I think that John Lennon could sometimes act like an absolute prick, but he was a magnificent musician. Similarly, Paul's treatment of George wasn't always exemplary but Paul is a genius. Axl Rose is one of my favourite singers and is IMO an absolute freak, but he is not someone whom I would want my sister, or niece, to date. If Walsh had said something along the lines of 'He was a bloody talented performer but he was a real arsehole when I met him' that would be one thing. Instead he denied Freddie's talent which I think is crossing the line. He implied that Freddie wasn't talented, that he was just a prima donna with more ego than talent; and I think if anybody is the arsehole, it's Steve Walsh.

I think you're extrapolating Walsh's remarks beyond where they were meant to go.  What he said, in the context of a question about 1975, was that Freddie was 'an asshole'.  Only when pushed on it did he qualify that with 'prima donna', which is something those closest to Freddie over most of his adult life have asserted as well.  His comments about ego and talent only came to qualify prima donna as not a good thing.  He never said directly or indirectly that Freddie had no talent.  What was said was that  in Walsh's view, during a discreet period of time that Walsh is qualified to comment on, Freddie's ego outstripped his talent and apparently made things unpleasant for some people.   I accept that.

Wait, let me translate what you just typed, and what Walsh said: He thinks that at the time, (the 1974/5 tour era), Freddie had a prima dona moment and that specific moment kinda put his talent on the "back burner" and the ego thing on the front burner?