Dear Mr Murdoch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pecFVzIfCNA&feature=feedu

Who else could do this? Best two fingers up to The News of The World.

it's 17 f**king years old...it's not best two fingers...cos it's not a current response

and it's a piss-poor song also

I kinda like the song. And I LOVE the attitude. =&^D

While Roger had the right intention I think the song is pretty shit.

I much prefer this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1P6KUyOhBc

It need not be current in order to be relevant. 

Art's value to its audience, among other things, is to be capable of application long after the original work was created. Art is not created in a vacuum, nor does its influence or relevance have an expiry date applied to it. Topical works can be re-contextualized or be open to interpretation, whereby it gives voice to a new speaker or provides commentary on later happenings. If the ideas expressed, which hold the work together, hold sway to some, then the work becomes salient (or remains so).

Regardless how old it is - I think it's an appropriate way to stick two fingers up by Roger after everything that happened when Freddie was ill.

it's only appropriate if you stick to your principles....it appears that Roger didn't.....Queen (hypocritically in my view) have repeatedly used Murdoch's newpapers to advertise various queen "product"

you have to ask (to quote queen) "who needs who" ?  as it appears Murdoch's empire makes quite a bit of money form QPL's very moralistic stance

First of all... thanks for a new post on the subject.. better than adding your opinion to the many others..

Second... the first line should go.. 'Dear Mr Murdoch... thanks for the free cd you gave away in your rag to make money for me.. this tabloid promotion only works one way doesnt it?'

I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands...

Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on.

It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song.

Here's a life lesson, kids - everybody's a hypocrite if they live long enough. Most folks just don't have ten thousand people poised to point out their hypocrisy all over the interwebs.

rhyeking wrote: I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands...

Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on.

It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song.
============================

Good Christ rhyeking.  You've out-douchebagged even yourself here, which is something indeed.

GratefulFan wrote: rhyeking wrote: I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands...

Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on.

It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song.
============================

Good Christ rhyeking.  You've out-douchebagged even yourself here, which is something indeed.
===================================

Deal with it.

brENsKi wrote: it's only appropriate if you stick to your principles....it appears that Roger didn't.....Queen (hypocritically in my view) have repeatedly used Murdoch's newpapers to advertise various queen "product"

you have to ask (to quote queen) "who needs who" ?  as it appears Murdoch's empire makes quite a bit of money form QPL's very moralistic stance
hmm... i see what you mean, but how does one AVOID using a Murdoch paper to promote stuff?  I mean he owns a fair few of them... In college in first year sociology i did a project on media and was horrified how many papers are owned by the one company, its unreal.

but surely the argument is about having principles, or not. or in Rpger's case apparently choosing when to apply principles.....

if Roger really had the principles he claims to have in "that" song then perhaps he doesn't prositute QPL to the one man he loathes, detests, hates, and sees as EVERYTHING that is wrong with the free press.... a man of such high principles as claimed, would take his advertising money to MirrorGroup who own a lont of local newspapers as well as the mirror, sunday mirror and the people....

and if you really want to make a stand...advertise on any commerical tv/radio station that isn't own by murdoch......ITV, channel4  and even channel 5 still have greater numbers of viewers than any single sky channel...or give your money to murdoch's main TV rival...virgin...there are so many solutions...but queen chose the easiest....

shame is that any previous protests are muted completely now...because if you get int bed with the devil, you're gonna end up sucking his c*ck....right now queen have been jizzed on by NewsCorp (to the sum of how ever much it costs to advertise TCR, WWRY and various other things, most of which didnt sell)

No one here has proposed that Roger or Queen or QPL could ever possibly be using this organization against which they have railed to try to do something more noble, to manipulate a corrupt system from within in order to bring about change. By promoting their art in a "sleazy" tabloid, they are subverting the tabloid's standards.