Is anyone else a little skeptical about the new album?

[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]He wants to avoid barrel scraping, but he's using those awful fucking MJ tracks?  Right, Roger, right ...
=================================================

[/QUOTE]

Yep.... I was very enthousiastic but this could have been expected. With a release date of January 2012??? Made in Heaven was done over two years with such painstaking hours. So these MJ track will be just a quick cash-in.
Not enough material??? There are enough demo's and material in the vaults but not enough to put just a few guitarlines and drums on it to release.

Why can't they just release everything?! The worst thing [i]we [/i]can do, is buying it.
They're getting old, so why not spend the money before it's too late?

We've already heard the Micheal Jackson songs, and they're not so great anyway.

There will be no new album. Shit

[QUOTE]

[b]ITSM wrote: [/b] Why can't they just release everything?! The worst thing [i]we [/i]can do, is buying it.
They're getting old, so why not spend the money before it's toolate?

We've already heard the Micheal Jackson songs, and they're not so great anyway. [/QUOTE]

You have heard the rough demos. You have NOT heard the final, proper versions.

[QUOTE]

Posted: 28 Oct 11, 13:53

[b]Bohardy wrote:[/b]

For fuck's sake people, please stop getting ahead of yourselves and look at the facts:

- Brian said, or has been quoted as saying "going through some old drawers" and "As well as seeing what we can unearth, we want to do a new musical to follow We Will Rock You. The songs are there, it’s just a question of finding time to get the right production"[b]
[/b]- The rest of the content, including the obligatory sensationalist headline, came from the fingers and hyperbolic and judicious-with-the-truth mind of some journo from The Daily Star, the UK's 2nd trashiest "newspaper".What was the context in which Brian said what was quoted? What leading questions might have been put to him? How do the quotes on their own equate to Queen being reborn, or Bri and Rog producing a new album of leftovers? They don't.

Come on. This is how tabloids operate. They get a quote or two, if they can be bothered, and if they can't they might make some up and attribute them to an anonymous source or close friend, they strip all context from the situation, and present whatever parts of the quote, in isolation, support in some vague and tangential way the story they have decided to spin.

I don't believe for one minute this is anything to get excited about. We know Bri and Rog have been "going through some old drawers", as they've confirmed the MJ tracks are being looked at, we've had the bonuses on the reissues, the SiS content, the BBC docu etc etc etc. He could easily have been referring to that kind of thing.

I'm happy to be proved wrong. Well, maybe not. I can't see that a MIH2 would be any good at all. [/QUOTE]
As I said on the It's Queen Reborn thread:

Well, looky here (from page 3 of this thread).For the past few weeks I've been going absolutely crazy, foaming at the mouth (well, not quite)at the quite staggering number of posts there's been from people talking about this new album, taking is as absolute fact that's it's going to happen, when the only source for the story seems to be the quotes from Bri I highlighted above. Oh, and some dubious report from an Italian radio station that seemed to actually be referring to an MJ rather than Queen album.

Did you all collectively lose your powers of critical thought or something? It was truly bizarre how many of the more intelligent posters, despite the thundering absence of any evidence whatsoever for this new album, got in on the act.

I'm simulataneously disappointed (with you all) and pleased (with myself).

EDIT

Should have read more of this thread  lol!

[QUOTE]

[b]pittrek wrote: [/b] There will be no new album. Shit[/QUOTE]

Correction....

There will be no new Shit album.

It's slated to coincide with the release of the never filmed Queen movie

AlbaNo1 wrote:

But what is it with the gay obsession in theUS. I dont think anyone would even consider liking Queen to be an indication of being gay in the UK.

==============

Just cultural differences I guess.  I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing.  Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond?

As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman.  Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough.

I wish I was kidding.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b]

Just cultural differences I guess.  I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing.  Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond?

As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman.  Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough.

I wish I was kidding. [/QUOTE]

I know how you feel, the exact same stuff happens to me today. However, the insults don't come as often as they used to.
Gotta start somewhere when it's getting better.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] AlbaNo1 wrote:

But what is it with the gay obsession in theUS. I dont think anyone would even consider liking Queen to be an indication of being gay in the UK.

==============

Just cultural differences I guess.  I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing.  Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond?

As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman.  Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough.

I wish I was kidding. [/QUOTE]
Strange, teenagers in Slovakia were wiser. All my mates had respect for Queen. However it has changed, my niece is 19 and whenever one of her friends find out I like Queen, they either react like "WTF is Queen" or "Oh, sorry, I didn't know you're gay" :-)  The funny thing is that whenever they find me listening to e.g. Buzzcocks or Ramones they react like "You're older then you look"

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] Just cultural differences I guess.  I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing.  Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond? As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman.  Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough. I wish I was kidding. [/QUOTE] It's interesting...it's my sense that Canada is far from homophobic.  It was among the first handful of countries to enshrine gay marriage, word and all, in the basic rights and freedoms of all citizens.  The current right wing federal government has recognized that there is little appetite to revisit that, even among mainstream conservatives. What we may be though is unusually 'traditional' in attitudes towards gender roles for a fundamentally liberal first world nation.  There was an international survey that made news earlier this fall that showed Canadian youth had unusually old fashioned views relative to countries like the UK and even Rwanda.   Some findings: [i]The report, released Thursday by the development agency Plan International, found 31 per cent of Canadian boys aged 12 to 17 believe a woman’s most important role is feeding her family and taking care of the home.That compared to 15 per cent of boys in the United Kingdom, but well short of 73 per cent in India and 68 per cent in Rwanda, who answered the same way. When the question was asked of Canadian adults, 24 per cent agreed that a woman’s primary role should be in the home.Almost half — 48 per cent — of the Canadian adolescents polled said men should be responsible for earning an income and providing for their families. Among Canadian adults, 43 per cent felt the same way. Among the other findings, 45 per cent of all the Canadian youths in this survey agreed with the statement that “to be a man, you need to be tough.” That compared to 13 per cent in the U.K. and 26 per cent in Rwanda.When the question was asked of Canadian adults, 38 per cent of men equated toughness with masculinity and that fell to 21 per cent among women.As well, 42 per cent of the young Canadians polled agreed that being a man meant taking more risks. Among Canadian adults, 41 per cent of men felt this way and 19 per cent of women did.[/i] That last paragraph is the most striking to me.  13% in the UK vs. 45% in Canada regarding the idea that men need to be 'tough' is an incredible gap for two areas of the world that share so many other fundamental values and outlooks.  And Rwanda!  Canadian youth are nearly twice as wedded to the idea of male toughness compared to a country torn by violence and civil war.  It's really very striking.   I was musing about why some of this may be, and I wondered if perhaps the ruggedness of the land and the preponderance of blue collar jobs that flow from a resource based economy, and the harshness of the climate in the winter come together to still favour a more traditional division of labour and a reliance on and appreciation of typical male attributes like strength, endurance and stoicism in the face of grinding physical work.   Even our national sport is a tough, physical game, including an occasional fist fight in the middle, which even I think is kind of crazy and unnecessary, but apparently an important aspect to many.  I think my point is are we less evolved or have we evolved in a way that suits the specific character of this country?  The survey was as interesting to me in the feedback on the various outlets that covered it as was the actual data.  There was little fretting about it and a whole lot of 'so what'?  There is a growing impatience in the North American online commentariat with women's issues and the attempt to blur and erase all lines between the genders. It's been fascinating and sometimes unnerving to watch over the last few years. Having finally rented 'Polytechnique' on the weekend, the anniversary of which is tomorrow, I wonder if it's notable even that the deadliest mass killing in the history of this country was a rage against feminism in which all 14 victims were female?  Hard to say. How this might translate to teen attitudes about things like gay artists is probably not clear, but on one level it's probably as much about being different as about being interested in Queen and their gay singer.   Teens value conformity, and if you're off listening to some ancient 70's band you'll probably be getting a second look anyway.  Still, being gay and bullied of course remains a significant issue on it's own, so anything that props that up even obliquely maybe needs to be a concern. Sorry all for the thread jack, I just found RW's experience and that of MadTheSwine kind of interesting and it made me think of that rather surprising survey.

GratefulFan, I can't tell you about RW's personal experiences, but I can tell you that here, in our (supposedly) great country of ours, there is just as much homophobia than there is in the States. When I was in seventh grade, and revealed myself as being a Queen fan (as well as a Beatles fan), I was called gay for at least 2 months. The only good part about it was I know it was not meant in harm. However, one time it was, and it really crushed me. One of my best friends is homophobic, and every time I start to talk about Queen, he just interrupts me, and calls me gay. I try to explain, not only to him, but to lots of other people, that only ONE MEMBER was gay (and even then, Freddie was bisexual anyway), but they don't care; they just label Queen as "gay."

It really pisses me off. Not only that, but to most people (teenagers anyway, I'm 14), all old music is labelled as "gay." Apparently the Beatles are gay? Yeah, there was a rumor a few years ago about Lennon & McCartney, but it's not like they actually know about it; they're just a**holes who don't know anything about it.

But, in the end, you just need to let it go. (Farts of course, not the insults.)
We need to do something about homophobia in North America. Not for Queen, but for actual people who are just afraid of homosexuals. Harper's not doing anything about it, and Obama is pretty much screwed now, so who are going to rely on?

Appreciate your insight MadTheSwine, as you're in the thick of things still.  My son went through grades 9 and 10 being called various variants of 'gay'.  He had a girlfriend at the school the entire time and is not at all effeminate.  They stopped this year, mostly I think because he no longer has that girlfriend and they're no longer jealous. LOL  It doesn't help that the first part of his name rhymes with one of the many ways to call somebody gay.  They took full advantage of that, and the whole thing kind of underscores my sense that teenagers calling somebody "gay" is just as often an all purpose way of isolating people who are targets for whatever reason and gaining social status and acceptance on the back of somebody else as it is an expression of true homophobia.  It's certainly not reserved for people who are actually gay, though that observation in no way intends to minimize the very real torment that gay teens endure when it *is* used to wound and diminish a fundamentalpart of who they are.

So in so far as the character of a nation can be defined at all, I'm still iffy about Canada as 'homophobic' per se.  It's virtually a non issue politically and socially, whereas most of the US is still fighting fundamental equality.  Only a handful of states allow gay marriage and the only federal initiative is the recent repeal of DADT, which is being accepted by some military brass only under some duress.  California recently undid legal gay marriage after having had for a time.  That is particularly shocking.  1) It's Cali and 2) having had it for a while should have made abundantly clear to everyone that when gay people get married....nothing happens.  Life just goes on.   There is no great social upheaval or moral rot.   So, no, I don't think we're in the same boat as the US.  We're the country that embarrasses itself internationally by banning the airplay of 'Money for Nothing' because it has the word 'faggot' in it.