Seven Seas of Rhye songwriting

Holly2003 wrote: In Musician Magazine in 1986 Brian said ""We finally had a chance to take our music to fans who had been buying our records and playing in a non-segregated situation" so this proves that quite soon afterward Brian was speaking about playing to non-segregated audiences and he didn't just fabricate this info 20 years later.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fp8JAQAAMAAJ&q=%22We+finally+had+a+chance+to+take+our+music+to+fans+who+had+been+buying+our+records+and+playing+in+a+non-segregated+situation%22&dq=%22We+finally+had+a+chance+to+take+our+music+to+fans+who+had+been+buying+our+records+and+playing+in+a+non-segregated+situation%22&source=bl&ots=307aGIRuFX&sig=pU7AjOSO1TbxOf3cCBwOoJEx1jw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yGo7UPLoGoHZ0QX71oGQAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

According to Phil Sutcliffe, Brian spoke to him about the Musicians' Union speech in a 1991 interview:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=adNONbUWLjgC&pg=PT185&lpg=PT185&dq=%22sun+city%22+musicians+union+queen&source=bl&ots=AZcTbl0Il3&sig=KPzcM_OTJpLyuTDKf2YOvHyGIV0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QWk7ULqqC-md0QXOpoDwDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22sun%20city%22%20musicians%20union%20queen&f=false

Also in 1991, Brian is interviewed in Q Magazine and basically says exactly what he would much later say on his Soapbox:

http://www.deaky.net/rain/q91E.html

In the first citation you provide, Brian only states the official reading of Sun City, namely that it was not (officially) segregated (Freddie's comments on the only audio recording we have available imply that black people were only seated in the back, and I am not aware of any photographs showing a mixed audience, but the lack of visual material in general means we can't draw firm conclusions from this). He does not mention anything that resembles "that we felt we were able to strike
a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away.", which he claims was the other half of their main argument  for going to South Africa (Brian's Soap Box, Thu 20 Jan 05, JOHN HARRIS IN THE STONE AGE).

I cannot acces a copy of Musician Magazine, as the link you provide only gives a (partial) table of contents, but your quote suggests he did nothing more than say they did not play a segregated venue. You are right that my remark is not completely true when you take it very literally - he did not say absolutely nothing about it for 21 years, but for 19 years, but I think you will agree that he did not say anything about Queen's motivation for playing South Africa in the first place (which he does in 2005, when, again, he says: "we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away". That suggests it was a conscious political move, and it would make sense for him to explain that in the Musician Magazine article. Does he? If he doesn't, is it the case that the quotation you provide is part of Brian's defence when challenged about their visit to South Africa? Again, I can't read the article, so I have to ask you, as apparently you can access it.

You may disagree with me, but I am still of the opinion that the quotation you provide and the quotation from the 2005 Soap Box article are quite different in their wording and implications.

What I think is interesting is the quotation in the second article you provide: "We've thought about the morals of it a lot. This band is not political, we are not out to make statements, we play to anyone who comes to listen."

We are not political, we do not make [political] statements. I think that flatly contradicts "we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away". After all, if they were trying to strike a blow against Apartheid, that would be quite some political statement.

Furthermore, Brian claims they were quoted in South African newspapers (plural!) saying that "Apartheid should be ended". Now, while I haven't been plowing through back issues of Musician Magazine, I *have* been looking at South African periodicals, and I have been unable to find any quotation resembling this. Of course, there is no way for me to know which periodicals Brian means, as he gives no reference, but said quotation does not appear, in any form I could find, in any of the major periodicals of the day. All I can think of is that it might have appeared in one of the small newspapers that sided with Harry Schwarz and the Democratic Party, the only legal party critical of apartheid at the time.

Apparently Brian did discuss the topic with Phil Sutcliffe in 1991, then, but does that constitute publicly discussing it?

I will admit that Brian did not manufacture the quoted arguments in 2005. However, I still firmly hold that the suggestion that it was a conscious political statement against Apartheid is story he invented at a much later date. Brian's original defence offered in the '80s ("this band is not political", etc.) flatly contradicts his later claim that it was a political move against Apartheid. They can't both be true, so one has to be a lie, or at least wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

They could both be 'lies', one out of trying not to take sides, the other out of trying to rewrite history.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
Mr.QueenFan:
"Brian doesn´t need to prove anything to you or the other naysayers on this forum. As long as there people like me who absolutelly adore this band and the music, and really suports the Queen+ projects and enjoys that Brian and Roger still love to play together, they will be fine. Trust me!"
Ah, right. So this forum is open only to those will absolutely and unconditionally support anything Brian or Roger do. We have a word for those people: stepfords. I seriously hope you are a teenager, otherwise you have a very unhealthy case of hero-worship.

Read again! What i say is that "as long as there´s people like me who supports them...", and supporting them doesn´t necessarily means agreeing with or liking everything. It means that i support them no matter what because i want them to be happy doing whathever they love to do in music. I only know if i´m gonna like it or not, after or during the event. Not like many of you who even before the event is donne already know that it´s crap. There´s a difference here. I have expectations too, but i´m open to be surprised!
It´s a privilege to live in the same time as this geniuses and i´m gonna make the best out of it!

And by the way, i´m not a teenager.
This is a forum for Queen fans, and one of the things i´m pretty shure this forum isn´t about, is for what you´re trying to do. You´re trying to deliberately deconstruct Brian May character in an open public forum for Queen fans.
If you wanna do that, i´m pretty shure you can do it in other places. Pretty shure this isn´t the place for that.

You simply don´t let go of South Africa. Why? Do you think this subject helps Queen in anything?
If you´re so passionate about this subject and the dictators of South America like you appear to be, there are other forums for you to do that. And there are other people for you to point fingers at. They´re called ... politicians!

The decision to tour South Africa was a career ending move. They only got their reputation back after live aid. I´me pretty shure they were ill advised by their staff. They probably heard more than a dozen people (at least) before the final decision. You should ask is, why after deliberation, someone thought this was a good career move and advised the band to go there? I´m pretty shure EMI at the time together with Queen Productions-not shure if it existed back then- did some meetings regarding this subject. Whoever adviced them, obviously had interest for them to go there. They kept Jim Beach after South Africa, so i´m shure they were happy with his intervention regarding this issue. But it´s clear tat the band doesn´t like to talk about this, so why don´t you let it go?

The poster "The Real Wizzard" makes perfect sense. He touches something that i never thought about. Freddie´s voice loss might have been triggered by a stressfull situation.
There are lot of questions that we will never have an answer to, but you choose to ignore everything and go after Brian to deconstruct is character.

And this clearly isn´t the place to do that!

To sum up some points and add my tuppence:

* Brian coming up with the SSOR instrumental break: Possible.
* Brian being whiney about not gaining enough credit: Obvious.
* Brian's memory being unreliable in the last ten years: Actually, it was already quite inaccurate in the 70's!
* TSMGO was a mixture of things: music (chords) by John & Roger, lyrics (+ melody, I reckon) by May & Mercury, arranged by May.
* Jim Hutton (RIP) claimed he had the Bo Rhap manuscript, which may explain why it's not on the book.
* Brian's handwriting was unintelligible, which is why Fred transcribed a lot of Brian's lyrics (e.g. The Prize).

Oh, and BTW, Paul was not Freddie's favourite singer.

Sebastian wrote:
* Brian being whiney about not gaining enough credit: Obvious.

... only to a few disgruntled Queen fans who seem to want to have a go at Brian at every available opportunity.

To 99.99% of the people who watched that documentary, it was an insight into the creative process, with a very clear implication that it was the first of many times this occurred, and likely to every band member.

Brian has clearly made his mistakes and doesn't have a perfect memory, but to assume that new insight into the band's history coming from his mouth must be wrong by default is a staggering display of arrogance.

Queen fans complain about the lack of access to the archives and the band's deeper history as a whole. After so many years, here was some new insight at last, but it didn't suit some people's perception of Brian and their self-professed expertise on his band, so the complaining just continued. It says more about you guys than it does about Brian, that's for sure.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
However, I still firmly hold that the suggestion that it was a conscious political statement against Apartheid is story he invented at a much later date. Brian's original defence offered in the '80s ("this band is not political", etc.) flatly contradicts his later claim that it was a political move against Apartheid. They can't both be true, so one has to be a lie, or at least wishful thinking.

There is a difference between the claim of a political motivation for an action - which is what you seem to be trying to pin to Brian - and the embrace of an inevitable political impact of an action made in the service of other, perhaps even competing, ideals. In that 2005 response to the Guardian article the first lines that directly reference motivation were "We take a pride in our art, and we seek to advance ourselves, but we perceive that life is short, and we try to make our efforts count on the side of GOOD...". That was completely consistent with not being a political band, with wanting to play above most considerations, and wanting to play where the fans wanted them. This is precisely the kind of philosophy that would naturally and quite correctly at least question the deep reach of a cultural boycott that effectively swept up everybody in an an effort to change the political system at the top.

It's easy to get in a rigid moralistic huff about their decision if you fail to stop and wonder just what the immediate impact was to real people. I think there is a chance that Brian was absolutely right. That if you talk only of the people that stood together, black and white, and shared a common experience as powerful and rare and transcendent as live music in that time and place that it probably did for many of those people fuei joy and hope and a sense of a larger world and a larger purpose seldom perceived in almost any other day in tense separation. I certainly believe Queen believed that. It's inconceivable to me that there would not have been a great deal of thought and hand wringing about the decision, though perhaps a lot of that was just getting around to feeling right about a decision they'd probably already unconsciously made anyway. The problem to me is not that they were necessarily wrong, but that the thinking was too small, too local, for the scope of the problem. In the big picture the truth probably is that it's more important for these unified actions not to crack, for individuals to submit their own preferences and beliefs to the larger cause in honour not only of the goal, but the sacrifices of other artists operating in the same difficult circumstances.

In retrospect they probably should not have gone, but the fact that a generation of South Africans had a very different experience of youth than most of us had when they themselves were too young to effect change is not a small thing. The complexity of the world rarely lends itself perfectly to a single solution to any problem and people can never go wrong by at least questioning these kind of hive mind actions. They can take on a life and power of their own that outpaces their purpose and logical integrity. As was brought up, why SA and not Argentina for example? Mostly because a lot of people said so. Queen went off on their own and that is not always the wrong thing. Though it probably was in this case on balance, Brian's view of it as complicated and unclear is probably closest to the best approximation of the truth.

It's nice that not everyone here's degenerating into a mindless Brian basher.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: In Musician Magazine in 1986 Brian said ""We finally had a chance to take our music to fans who had been buying our records and playing in a non-segregated situation" so this proves that quite soon afterward Brian was speaking about playing to non-segregated audiences and he didn't just fabricate this info 20 years later.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fp8JAQAAMAAJ&q=%22We+finally+had+a+chance+to+take+our+music+to+fans+who+had+been+buying+our+records+and+playing+in+a+non-segregated+situation%22&dq=%22We+finally+had+a+chance+to+take+our+music+to+fans+who+had+been+buying+our+records+and+playing+in+a+non-segregated+situation%22&source=bl&ots=307aGIRuFX&sig=pU7AjOSO1TbxOf3cCBwOoJEx1jw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yGo7UPLoGoHZ0QX71oGQAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAAAccording to Phil Sutcliffe, Brian spoke to him about the Musicians' Union speech in a 1991 interview:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=adNONbUWLjgC&pg=PT185&lpg=PT185&dq=%22sun+city%22+musicians+union+queen&source=bl&ots=AZcTbl0Il3&sig=KPzcM_OTJpLyuTDKf2YOvHyGIV0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QWk7ULqqC-md0QXOpoDwDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22sun%20city%22%20musicians%20union%20queen&f=false Also in 1991, Brian is interviewed in Q Magazine and basically says exactly what he would much later say on his Soapbox:http://www.deaky.net/rain/q91E.html

In the first citation you provide, Brian only states the official reading of Sun City, namely that it was not (officially) segregated (Freddie's comments on the only audio recording we have available imply that black people were only seated in the back, and I am not aware of any photographs showing a mixed audience, but the lack of visual material in general means we can't draw firm conclusions from this). He does not mention anything that resembles "that we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away.", which he claims was the other half of their main argument  for going to South Africa (Brian's Soap Box, Thu 20 Jan 05, JOHN HARRIS IN THE STONE AGE). I cannot acces a copy of Musician Magazine, as the link you provide only gives a (partial) table of contents, but your quote suggests he did nothing more than say they did not play a segregated venue. You are right that my remark is not completely true when you take it very literally - he did not say absolutely nothing about it for 21 years, but for 19 years, but I think you will agree that he did not say anything about Queen's motivation for playing South Africa in the first place (which he does in 2005, when, again, he says: "we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away". That suggests it was a conscious political move, and it would make sense for him to explain that in the Musician Magazine article. Does he? If he doesn't, is it the case that the quotation you provide is part of Brian's defence when challenged about their visit to South Africa? Again, I can't read the article, so I have to ask you, as apparently you can access it.You may disagree with me, but I am still of the opinion that the quotation you provide and the quotation from the 2005 Soap Box article are quite different in their wording and implications.What I think is interesting is the quotation in the second article you provide: "We've thought about the morals of it a lot. This band is not political, we are not out to make statements, we play to anyone who comes to listen."We are not political, we do not make [political] statements. I think that flatly contradicts "we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away". After all, if they were trying to strike a blow against Apartheid, that would be quite some political statement.Furthermore, Brian claims they were quoted in South African newspapers (plural!) saying that "Apartheid should be ended". Now, while I haven't been plowing through back issues of Musician Magazine, I *have* been looking at South African periodicals, and I have been unable to find any quotation resembling this. Of course, there is no way for me to know which periodicals Brian means, as he gives no reference, but said quotation does not appear, in any form I could find, in any of the major periodicals of the day. All I can think of is that it might have appeared in one of the small newspapers that sided with Harry Schwarz and the Democratic Party, the only legal party critical of apartheid at the time.Apparently Brian did discuss the topic with Phil Sutcliffe in 1991, then, but does that constitute publicly discussing it?I will admit that Brian did not manufacture the quoted arguments in 2005. However, I still firmly hold that the suggestion that it was a conscious political statement against Apartheid is story he invented at a much later date. Brian's original defence offered in the '80s ("this band is not political", etc.) flatly contradicts his later claim that it was a political move against Apartheid. They can't both be true, so one has to be a lie, or at least wishful thinking.

[/QUOTE]
Well it's good that we can dispose of your "he made it all up 20 years later" point. However, your remaining criticism only stands if we accept your very rigid and inflexible interpretation of Brian's soapbox comments. As I've tried to explain, it's possible to interpret Brian's comments in context of earlier remarks. As for what he said or didn't say to the Musicians Union, unless there's a transcript or someone else speaks out we'll never know but I find it very hard to believe he would say something as specific as that if he was lying: surely he would know someone would contradict him? And since that hasn't happened I fiond his comments plausible, if probably rose-tinted in hindsight. As I said earlier, I'd like to see a pattern of duplicity (not shown here) before I would believe he is, at heart, an immoral person. If anything it's the opposite. He has morals and tries to stick to them regardless of what everyone thinks. And it's that inflexibility and stubborness that often makes it hard to warm to him.

Just to keep this short: I don't think Brian is an immoral person, I think "improves", in his head, nearly everything Queen has ever done. I think that's also the reason for him claiming authorship over a number of tracks credited to Queen - Brian remembers his own contributions to those songs, forgets what exactly the others contributed, and honestly remembers that *he* wrote them.

Summary: Brian is not an immoral person, but I do consider him an "unreliable witness", which is a term historians use to describe anyone who gives contradictory, ambiguous or incorrect statements, either accidentally or on purpose.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
Just to keep this short: I don't think Brian is an immoral person, I think "improves", in his head, nearly everything Queen has ever done. I think that's also the reason for him claiming authorship over a number of tracks credited to Queen - Brian remembers his own contributions to those songs, forgets what exactly the others contributed, and honestly remembers that *he* wrote them.
Summary: Brian is not an immoral person, but I do consider him an "unreliable witness", which is a term historians use to describe anyone who gives contradictory, ambiguous or incorrect statements, either accidentally or on purpose.

It depends what we're talking about. In this case, you are basically accusing him of fabricating info about Sun City, about a speech he gave to the Musicians Union and about his contribution to SSoR. I'm more inclined to believe he can be unreliable about which song was played on which night (for example) than about susbtantial matters such as this. At the same time, I'm inclined to think he's painting an overly-rosy picture. The SSoR thing isn't about memory though it's about lies. At least, that's the accusation being thrown around on this thread, that he's claiming credit for something he didn't do because Fred isn't around any more to contradict him. While I make take th piss out of Brian, I draw a line at something like this, at least until I see some compelling evidence, which is absent here.

ps "historians" tend to recognise a multitude of perspectives rather than just one. They also tend to deal with what can be proved and avoid speculation without aforementioned evidence. Of course, the burden of proof is much lesss on an internet forum ...

The Real Wizard wrote:... only to a few disgruntled Queen fans who seem to want to have a go at Brian at every available opportunity.

Calling him out on his whining is not the same as wanting to have a go at him at every available opportunity. Life's not black and white.

The Real Wizard wrote:To 99.99% of the people who watched that documentary

Hard to prove, both as an exact and as an approximate figure.

The Real Wizard wrote:it was an insight into the creative process, with a very clear implication that it was the first of many times this occurred

TBF, he did NOT at any point say or imply it was the *first*. There were most likely several instances pre-SSOR where such a thing happened (e.g. Liar).

The Real Wizard wrote:and likely to every band member.

Yet, for some reason, he conveniently highlights his own contributions to others' songs (e.g. stating he co-wrote IAHL's lyrics) but rarely, if ever, says something like '..... helped me on this song,' TSMGO aside; and even for that one, he went from 'there's a bit of all of us in it' in 1991 to 'I wrote it' in 2011.

The Real Wizard wrote:to assume that new insight into the band's history coming from his mouth must be wrong by default is a staggering display of arrogance.

Nobody's said that. To assume that every comment that is not 'Brian is God' is a direct attack to him is, indeed, a staggering display of arrogance... and stepfordism as well.

The Real Wizard wrote:Queen fans complain about the lack of access to the archives and the band's deeper history as a whole. After so many years, here was some new insight at last, but it didn't suit some people's perception of Brian and their self-professed expertise on his band, so the complaining just continued. It says more about you guys than it does about Brian, that's for sure.

A Brian fan complains about the lack of positive comments to his idol. After so many years, he still whines and moans about comments that differ from 'Brian's perfect'. It says more about said May fan than it does about us, that's for sure.

Idol? I just feel there's a whole lot of demonizing Brian with an agenda behind it.

If I defend Bono's right to exist outside of people who accuse him of political opportunism, does that mean I idolize Bono too?

Anyone can assemble a bunch of quotes to support an argument. But to make sweeping statements about someone as a person based on a few quotes says more about those people than it does about him.

When I left the house this morning I was immediately fascinated by an unusual configuration of starlings on a telephone line outside.  It made me think of this discussion, and I guess all situations where power is arrayed against someone or something. I snapped a picture with my phone.  Silly to post it maybe, and sillier to go on about it, but it paints a common picture in its way. Depending how one shifts one perspective the power in the South African situation lay with the South African government against it's people, with white South Africans against black South Africans, the United Nations and the world against South Africa, the Musician's Union against artists like Queen, the press against Queen, a thousand other lesser known stories probably too. Ostracism has been used as a social tool forever, because it usually works.  It's almost always easier to be on the side where the power is gathered, for right or for wrong.  Being the lonely bird could mean you're a bad bird, or a misled one, a stubborn one, or a strong  and often courageous one, sometimes all at once. But as power shifts and grows it almost always eventually stops asking itself enough questions and just muscles along.  I remain unsure about the meaning and lessons of Queen's history in South Africa, but I suspect that the power to shape and tell the story and set it a certain way in the public consciousness was not held in the Queen camp.  Did those aligned to condemn Queen so harshly ask themselves enough questions? I don't know. Anyway, my birds:

Alot has been stated in this thread! My understanding with regard to Sun City isn't much clearer than it was before this thread.

Thanks to Sebastian for the bit about Hutton possibly having the Bo Rhap manuscript. I know I watched a youtube with Brian on the making of the song and he did have some of Freddies Bo Rhap writing in his hand as the camera zoomed in on it, it's in the vid. I nearly knew it would be included in the lyrics book as the song is one of the most well known/loved. Also, yes, probably Brians handwriting is tough to read answering why a lot of his songs are in Freddies hand. Still doesn't answer the question of why lack of Freddie pics accompanying Freddie songs in the lyrics book. LOML clearly should have had Freddie big and bold on the page instead of Brian! Well sure, it's a "petty" argument but just something I noticed throughout the book and questioned. Small small thing but, it would possibly point to some jealousy or whatever from Brian to Freddie. There is that interview where Freddie "jokingly" says he and Brian couldn't be in the same room 5 minutes without a fight. Freddie continues and says "I haven't hit him yet!" then adds " there's still time!" Then interviewer asks him about Brians songs and Freddie says he didn't like ANY of them! Then of course Freddie laughs again and indicates he's joking. Was he?? lol I know in my life I've seen a lot of truth come out in a joking manner. Yes yes, don't even reply with them being like brothers. In my petty little mind I can still totally see that there could be some resentment for Freddies brilliance with music both written and vocally. Would make sense to me. And by the way, I'm not slinging mud at Brian. I love his talent.

I really don't care much except for the sake of correct history, for which I would like to know and then again there is MUCH that we may never know.