Barcelona sold 30,000 copies in Switzerland (where it was most successful), and let's say, for the sake of argument, that it also got platinum in Spain (90K). It earned silver in the UK (60K) so it adds up to 210 thousand copies in those three territories. In the rest of the world, it didn't gain much interest so let's say, again for the sake of argument, it sold 290K elsewhere, adding for about 500,000 copies.
Barcelona vs The Game: Half a million vs nine million. Who wins? The Game.
Barcelona vs Flash Gordon: Half a million vs two and a half million. 0.5 < 2.5. Thus, who wins? Flash Gordon.
Barcelona vs Hot Space: 500,000 < 3,500,000. Who wins? Hot Space.
Barcelona vs The Works: 500,000 < 5,000,000. Who wins? The Works.
Barcelona vs A Kind of Magic: 500,000 < 6,000,000. Who wins? A Kind of Magic.
Barcelona vs The Miracle. 500,000 < 5,000,000. Who wins? The Miracle.
So no: it didn't outsell ANY of the albums Queen released in the 80's. I agree about the quality of the album (I also prefer it) but to each its own. Commercially, even Queen's least successful album (i.e. a toss-up between Flash and the first two albums) was waaaaaaaaay more successful than 'Barcelona', full stop.
[/QUOTE]
Nice.
How many did it sell in the USA?
Sebastian · Member since
It didn't earn any certification there so it's surely less than half a million. According to Wikipedia, it peaked at No. 6 there but only when re-issued in 1992.
mike hunt · Member since
I didn't think it out sold any 80's Queen album, but my point was the quality of the music. I'm also not a 80's queen basher....I like most of their 80's stuff. it's a hard life and who wants to live forever are among my favorite songs. The game one of my favorite albums. Still, overall prefer barcelona.
Winter Land Man · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
It didn't earn any certification there so it's surely less than half a million. According to Wikipedia, it peaked at No. 6 there but only when re-issued in 1992.
[/QUOTE]
So basically nothing in '88?
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
I have not mentioned it hundreds of times. Maybe dozens of times, but not hundreds. If we actually counted, I think I've posted the Rodgers point 37-40 times. Closer to 0 than 100.
Since Brian didn't do solo work in his golden period, and neither did Freddie, I think that's an unfair point to make. A 1975 Freddie album wouldn't have been 'Mr Bad Guy' and a 1965 Wilson solo album wouldn't have been 'These Times'.
> One is not better than the other but one is "more excellent" .. hmmmm....
One is not better than the other in terms of ARRANGING vocal harmonies. One is 'more excellent' in terms of singing and playing the piano. They're even in different paragraphs. Unless you can't actually process information or are obsessed about me, that point makes absolutely no sense.
> As for the PR thing, as has been stated before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It IS evidence that PR was not Fred's favourite (especially when you've got such amount of evidence). He may have liked him (and probably did considering that Paul's indeed a very good singer), but he was not a favourite.
> Or in this case, we have Brian May as evidence, who was, no doubt, a lot closer to Fred than some of those interviewed
And Brian May often mentioned Fred's influences, and not once he mentioned PR. That's before he conveniently started re-writing history, months before the tour with him began. Same for Roger.
> There's nothing wrong with being cynical, but basically you're calling Brian a liar
I'm not calling him a liar. In fact, in my previous message I just commented that from what can be gathered from interviews made to Freddie, Brian, Roger, John, Fred's close friends, former bandmates and boyfriends, the list of Freddie's favourites included several singers, but Paul Rodgers was not one of them. It's not the same as calling Brian a liar. It may be suggesting that Brian lied (and, actually, it's Roger who overplayed the alleged 'Paul was Freddie's favourite', Brian only mentioned it occasionally) or that he conveniently used something that can't be proven and that actually has a lot of counterevidence to promote or validate a collaboration (something they didn't need to do when issuing the single with George Michael, and he [i]was [/i]one of his favourites).
But saying or implying 'he may have not be telling the truth' is not the same as 'he lied', let alone the same as 'he is a liar.' For all we know, 99.99% of what he's said about Fred is completely spot-on. But the thing about PR is part of the remaining 0.01%.
[/QUOTE]
So its fine to contradict yourself, as long as the contradictions are separated by a paragraph break? Hmmm...
I guess that also explains your comment "he conveniently started re-writing history, months before the tour with him began. "
LINE/PARAGRAPH BREAK
and your next comment: "I'm not calling him a liar."
Hmmm....
As for my supposed "obsession" with you, I think I've responded to you directly about a dozen times in the 9-10 years I've been posting, on and off, on Queenzone. I would say an "obsession" would mean posting hundreds, or more likely thousands of times. Now a dozen is less than hundreds. In fact, it's closer to zero than 'hundreds'. Hmmm...
Sebastian · Member since
> I didn't think it out sold any 80's Queen album, but my point was the quality of the music.
My message wasn't directed at you, and I agree about the quality. Great, great album.
> So basically nothing in '88?
Well, more than nothing but less than a lot. Sadly. I really think the album was very well made and deserved a lot of success.
> So its fine to contradict yourself, as long as the contradictions are separated by a paragraph break? Hmmm...
It was not a contradiction since the point about not better or worse was about their skills as arrangers. Once I began talking about their performing abilities the 'neither one's "better" or "worse"' point didn't apply, simple as that. I'll give you an example:
* 'Ghost' features an actor who died last year.
* I visited a hotel in Sweden.
Now, it does not mean the hotel in Sweden has anything to do with the film, or that the hotel in question has ghosts, nor I'm implying that the hotel died last year (whatever that means), nor I'm implying that Sweden died last year (whatever that means). Same case here:
* As arrangers, they're both great, not 'better' or 'worse' than one another.
* As piano-players and singers, they're both excellent, but Fred a bit more IMO.
So, again, the 'neither "better" nor "worse"' point only applies to the first statement, not the second.
> I guess that also explains your comment "he conveniently started re-writing history, months before the tour with him began. "
And I stand by it. But it's not the same as being a liar. Fred played guitar in CLTCL and a couple more songs, that doesn't make him a guitarist. So, if Brian lied (or bore false witness, which is not the same) this time, it doesn't necessarily make him a liar. It's not a black and white situation.
> and your next comment: "I'm not calling him a liar."
And I'm not. Look for a comment where I say 'Brian is a liar.' There isn't, is it? So, I'm not calling him a liar. I'm not implying it either.
> As for my supposed "obsession" with you
Supposed by whom? Not by me anyway, as I only wrote 'unless you can't process information or have an obsession with me (or something like that), it doesn't make any sense.' It leaves two options: that your point about my alleged contradiction makes no sense (it doesn't), or that it does (it doesn't). In the latter case (which doesn't apply), you're either uncapable of understanding that the 'neither "better" nor "worse"' point applied only to their ability as arrangers, not to their performing skills, or you're simply obsessed with me. I don't know if your case is the former, the latter, both, or none. I only suggested possibilities.
>, I think I've responded to you directly about a dozen times in the 9-10 years I've been posting, on and off, on Queenzone.
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
> I would say an "obsession" would mean posting hundreds, or more likely thousands of times.
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
> Now a dozen is less than hundreds.
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
> In fact, it's closer to zero than 'hundreds'. Hmmm...
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
GratefulFan · Member since
BNL wrote a great song called "Brian Wilson' inspired by Wilson's descent into depression and addiction and mental illness. Brian Wilson himself appeared with them on stage at some point and did an acapella version, and later covered it on one of his own live albums. The studio version really is best, but I can't find it on YouTube.
The 'late night record shop' lyric is a reference to the iconic and now defunct "Sam the Record Man" in downtown Toronto.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I didn't think it out sold any 80's Queen album, but my point was the quality of the music.
My message wasn't directed at you, and I agree about the quality. Great, great album.
> So basically nothing in '88?
Well, more than nothing but less than a lot. Sadly. I really think the album was very well made and deserved a lot of success.
> So its fine to contradict yourself, as long as the contradictions are separated by a paragraph break? Hmmm...
It was not a contradiction since the point about not better or worse was about their skills as arrangers. Once I began talking about their performing abilities the 'neither one's "better" or "worse"' point didn't apply, simple as that. I'll give you an example:
* 'Ghost' features an actor who died last year.
* I visited a hotel in Sweden.
Now, it does not mean the hotel in Sweden has anything to do with the film, or that the hotel in question has ghosts, nor I'm implying that the hotel died last year (whatever that means), nor I'm implying that Sweden died last year (whatever that means). Same case here:
* As arrangers, they're both great, not 'better' or 'worse' than one another.
* As piano-players and singers, they're both excellent, but Fred a bit more IMO.
So, again, the 'neither "better" nor "worse"' point only applies to the first statement, not the second.
> I guess that also explains your comment "he conveniently started re-writing history, months before the tour with him began. "
And I stand by it. But it's not the same as being a liar. Fred played guitar in CLTCL and a couple more songs, that doesn't make him a guitarist. So, if Brian lied (or bore false witness, which is not the same) this time, it doesn't necessarily make him a liar. It's not a black and white situation.
> and your next comment: "I'm not calling him a liar."
And I'm not. Look for a comment where I say 'Brian is a liar.' There isn't, is it? So, I'm not calling him a liar. I'm not implying it either.
> As for my supposed "obsession" with you
Supposed by whom? Not by me anyway, as I only wrote 'unless you can't process information or have an obsession with me (or something like that), it doesn't make any sense.' It leaves two options: that your point about my alleged contradiction makes no sense (it doesn't), or that it does (it doesn't). In the latter case (which doesn't apply), you're either uncapable of understanding that the 'neither "better" nor "worse"' point applied only to their ability as arrangers, not to their performing skills, or you're simply obsessed with me. I don't know if your case is the former, the latter, both, or none. I only suggested possibilities.
>, I think I've responded to you directly about a dozen times in the 9-10 years I've been posting, on and off, on Queenzone.
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
> I would say an "obsession" would mean posting hundreds, or more likely thousands of times.
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
> Now a dozen is less than hundreds.
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
> In fact, it's closer to zero than 'hundreds'. Hmmm...
If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.
[/QUOTE]
You are as mad as a bag of cats.
Sebastian · Member since
Let's assume I am. That doesn't change that:
1. I didn't contradict myself with the 'neither better nor worse' thing, as it referred to something else.
2. I didn't call Dr May a liar.
3. You seem to be obsessed with me.
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote: "I have not mentioned it hundreds of times. Maybe dozens of times, but not hundreds. If we actually counted, I think I've posted the Rodgers point 37-40 times. Closer to 0 than 100." Obviously I didn't literally mean hundreds of times. My point was that you mention it all the time. Even on threads that are have nothing to do with Paul Rodgers.
"Since Brian didn't do solo work in his golden period, and neither did Freddie, I think that's an unfair point to make. A 1975 Freddie album wouldn't have been 'Mr Bad Guy' and a 1965 Wilson solo album wouldn't have been 'These Times'." I don't think it's an unfair point to make. Take the MIH album. IMO both of the Freddie covers on it were better than they were on Mr Bad Guy, with May/Taylor/Deacon greatly improving them. Additionally Bo Rhap is a masterpiece, and Freddie's contributions to it can not be measured, but if you took away May/Taylor/Deacon, I don't think it would be nearly as good. Certain artists work best as either solo artists or as members of groups. I don't think that David Bowie is someone whose nature would allow him to be a member of a rock band. Freddie, alternatively, was someone whom IMO worked best as a lead singer/frontman.
Regarding Brian, he's a great musical artist, but what arguably helped turn many of the songs that he has written into masterpieces have been the contributions of his BB colleagues, especially since it is debatable as to whether or not he was even the best singer in the Beach Boys. He's an incredible writer and composer, but purely as an artist, I don't think he was ever so great that he didn't need the Beach Boys to help turn his vision into reality.
Sebastian · Member since
> My point was that you mention it all the time. Even on threads that are have nothing to do with Paul Rodgers.
True, but that's not actually hurting anybody. I wouldn't ask you to write about something or stop writing about something. If you want to raise a point 'all the time', then it's your prerogative. Same case here: it's my choice and the best you can do if it annoys you is refrain from reading my PR-related comments.
> Take the MIH album. IMO both of the Freddie covers on it were better than they were on Mr Bad Guy, with May/Taylor/Deacon greatly improving them.
Again, too many variables: Fred did the original versions downtime while he was not with Queen recording or touring; it was done in a period where he (probably influenced by trends) thought highly of synthesisers (which sound dated now), etc. What Roger, Brian and John did was while they were working full time, had the benefit of a better technology, and the songs were already written and had the piano and vocals put in, making it easier to complete them.
It can't be guaranteed that a 1975 Fred solo album would've been as crappy as 'Mr Bad Guy' or that if he'd ever had a full-time solo career (like Bowie) it would've been as LQ as what he did downtime. Same for virtually anybody else.
> Additionally Bo Rhap is a masterpiece, and Freddie's contributions to it can not be measured, but if you took away May/Taylor/Deacon, I don't think it would be nearly as good.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Impossible to know.
> Certain artists work best as either solo artists or as members of groups. I don't think that David Bowie is someone whose nature would allow him to be a member of a rock band. Freddie, alternatively, was someone whom IMO worked best as a lead singer/frontman.
Fred worked as waaaaaaaaaaay more than a lead singer/frontman.
> Regarding Brian, he's a great musical artist, but what arguably helped turn many of the songs that he has written into masterpieces have been the contributions of his BB colleagues
There I agree. Mike's lyrics are great, for instance. A perfect complement. Same for Freddie and Tim Rice: I wish they'd collaborated more often. It'd have behoved him to have a Bernie Taupin. What Mike Moran did for Fred was top notch as well.
> especially since it is debatable as to whether or not he was even the best singer in the Beach Boys.
And IMO he wasn't. By far the best songwriter and the most advanced musician, but not the best singer.
> He's an incredible writer and composer, but purely as an artist
'Purely as an artist' also includes what he wrote and composed.
> I don't think he was ever so great that he didn't need the Beach Boys to help turn his vision into reality.
Something similar happened to Fred with [i]Bo Rhap[/i]: he certainly could have sung the high Bb at the end of the opera section, and it'd have sounded great, but Roger took it to another level, and Fred was humble enough to have another person doing it since he knew the final product would be better that way. Same for Brian (May, that is) letting Fred sing the [i]Sister[/i] middle-eight or Brian (Wilson) letting Carl sing [i]Good Vibrations[/i] and [i]God Only Knows[/i].
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote: > My point was that you mention it all the time. Even on threads that are have nothing to do with Paul Rodgers. "True, but that's not actually hurting anybody. I wouldn't ask you to write about something or stop writing about something. If you want to raise a point 'all the time', then it's your prerogative. Same case here: it's my choice and the best you can do if it annoys you is refrain from reading my PR-related comments." Of course, it's your choice, and no, you're not hurting anyone, but can you not see that not only it is annoying but it dilutes your point? Not to mention that the thread has nothing to do with Paul Rodgers.
"Again, too many variables: Fred did the original versions downtime while he was not with Queen recording or touring; it was done in a period where he (probably influenced by trends) thought highly of synthesisers (which sound dated now), etc. What Roger, Brian and John did was while they were working full time, had the benefit of a better technology, and the songs were already written and had the piano and vocals put in, making it easier to complete them." Yes, but if you compare those songs to Queen songs released during the early to mid 80's, such as Play The Game or I Want To Break Free, the Freddie songs were arguably inferior. I think that if Freddie had given them to the group to begin with, they could have been great or at least evrey good from the beginning.
"It can't be guaranteed that a 1975 Fred solo album would've been as crappy as 'Mr Bad Guy' or that if he'd ever had a full-time solo career (like Bowie) it would've been as LQ as what he did downtime. Same for virtually anybody else." There are no guarentees about anything, but we can speculate on what he did with Queen and what he did by himself.
" "Additionally Bo Rhap is a masterpiece, and Freddie's contributions to it can not be measured, but if you took away
May/Taylor/Deacon, I don't think it would be nearly as good."
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Impossible to know." We can speculate however.
"Certain artists work best as either solo artists or as members of groups. I don't think that David Bowie is someone whose nature would allow him to be a member of a rock band. Freddie, alternatively, was someone whom IMO worked best as a lead singer/frontman."
Fred worked as waaaaaaaaaaay more than a lead singer/frontman." Within the structure of a group, he was the lead singer/frontman. That's what I'm referring to.
""Regarding Brian, he's a great musical artist, but what arguably helped turn many of the songs that he has written into masterpieces have been the contributions of his BB colleagues"
There I agree. Mike's lyrics are great, for instance. A perfect complement. Same for Freddie and Tim Rice: I wish they'd collaborated more often. It'd have behoved him to have a Bernie Taupin. What Mike Moran did for
Fred was top notch as well." Absolutely.
" "especially since it is debatable as to whether or not he was even the best singer in the Beach Boys."
And IMO he wasn't. By far the best songwriter and the most advanced musician, but not the best singer." I would agree with that.
" "He's an incredible writer and composer, but purely as an artist"
'Purely as an artist' also includes what he wrote and composed." One could debate that, but in this context, I'm obviously not referring to his writing and composing.
"" don't think he was ever so great that he didn't need the Beach Boys to help turn his vision into reality."
Something similar happened to Fred with Bo Rhap: he certainly could have sung the high Bb at the end of the opera
section, and it'd have sounded great, but Roger took it to another level, and Fred was humble enough to have another person doing it since he knew the final product would be better that way. Same for Brian
(May, that is) letting Fred sing the Sister middle-eight or Brian (Wilson) letting Carl sing Good Vibrations and God Only Knows." Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Freddie was a genius (as is/was Brian Wilson), but I don't think that he was a genius who worked best alone.
Sebastian · Member since
> Of course, it's your choice, and no, you're not hurting anyone, but can you not see that not only it is annoying but it dilutes your point?
Can you not see that saying it's annoying and dilutes my point, is annoying and dilutes your point?
> Not to mention that the thread has nothing to do with Paul Rodgers.
Not to mention that the thread has nothing to do with whether I mention Paul Rodgers or not.
> Yes, but if you compare those songs to Queen songs released during the early to mid 80's, such as Play The Game or I Want To Break Free, the Freddie songs were arguably inferior.
Because they were on his B-list. Had he been a full-time solo artist (like Bowie), he'd probably saved his best efforts and everything would've been different.
> I think that if Freddie had given them to the group to begin with, they could have been great or at least evrey good from the beginning.
Or if Fred had been a full-time solo artist instead of a full-time group member only devoting extra time to his solo record.
> There are no guarentees about anything, but we can speculate on what he did with Queen and what he did by himself.
Yes, but it's important to know the context. Again, Fred's priority in terms of work was Queen, which explains him giving his absolute best for [i]Bo Rhap[/i] and others. For his debut (and only) original solo album ('Barcelona' is a duet, not a solo thing), he used songs not good enough for the band, songs heavily influenced by the trends of the time, etc. Had Fred been a full-time solo artist and had 'Bad Guy' been produced in 1975, things would've been very different.
> We can speculate however.
Same as before.
> Within the structure of a group, he was the lead singer/frontman. That's what I'm referring to.
He was the lead singer/frontman, and he was the piano player (piano is the main instrument in several Queen songs including some of their biggest hits, so it's not a minor detail), and he was the main composer, and he was the main lyricist, and he was the main arranger, and he was the main producer.
> Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Freddie was a genius (as is/was Brian Wilson), but I don't think that he was a genius who worked best alone.
No genius worked best alone. David Bowie always had people playing the piano, the drums, etc., guest arrangers, producers, engineers, etc. So, not alone is not necessarily as part of a group.
mike hunt · Member since
I agree that no genious works best alone....did hendrix do everything by himself, or did he have great muscians to work with?......did elton write his own lryics, or did he have someone write them for him?...The same for bowie and freddie mercury.
Winter Land Man · Member since
Brian Wilson saw Prince once, but Prince told his assistant to tell Brian Wilson that "I don't even want to know him!"... apparently, Prince was upset that Lenny was too busy with Brian's album, that Lenny couldn't listen to Prince's latest album.
Brian Wilson once was arrested at some George Bush (Senior) event. Anyone know the story about that? I think it was in '84, and Brian ended up in jail for four or five hours.
