Freddie Mercury solo rights

Mercury Songs Ltd is the company that seems to be in charge of Freddie's solo output. A quick web search tells me the following:

"Mercury Songs Limited was registered on 29 Dec 1977. The business has a status of active. Their founding director was Henry Beach, who is British, aged 70. Mercury Songs Limited have a single shareholder; John Libson & Henry James Beach. They have no known group companies. The company has assets totalling £1,151,261 plus total liabilities totalling £786,887. They owe £786,887 to creditors and are due £421,588 from trade debtors. As of their last financial statement, they had £721,376 in cash reserves. Their book value is £364,374, and the value of their shareholders' fund is £364,374."

In addition:

Current directors:
Mr Amin Saleh
Mr Henry James Beach
Mr John Leslie Libson

Current Secretaries:
Ms Mary Georgina Austin

[QUOTE] [b]thefallenqueen wrote:[/b]
Knebworth![/QUOTE]
Ah, goddamit. Don't bring this up again.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] For fuck's sake...
Every artist has their albums and greatest hits compilations re-released. This is not going to change.

It's called the music "business", not the music charity.

They've released the Freddie boxed set, plenty of concert DVDs, great bonus tracks on the latest album remasters, and just did two documentaries full of new unseen bits - and there is still far more complaining than gratitude.

Do you think QP is going to be inspired to create a similar Queen boxed set if all people do is complain about the fact that it was a mere 11 discs instead of 14 ?

Seriously - think about it. If the "hardcore" fans are aching for new Queen material and keep complaining when it comes out, why should QP even bother if these very people will never be pleased?[/QUOTE]
That's a completely false argument as these releases weren't for hard-core fans but for the widest possible audience.[/QUOTE]
This.

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]

Mercury Songs Ltd is the company that seems to be in charge of Freddie's solo output. A quick web search tells me the following:

"Mercury Songs Limited was registered on 29 Dec 1977. The business has a status of active. Their founding director was Henry Beach, who is British, aged 70. Mercury Songs Limited have a single shareholder; John Libson & Henry James Beach. They have no known group companies. The company has assets totalling £1,151,261 plus total liabilities totalling £786,887. They owe £786,887 to creditors and are due £421,588 from trade debtors. As of their last financial statement, they had £721,376 in cash reserves. Their book value is £364,374, and the value of their shareholders' fund is £364,374."

In addition:

Current directors:
Mr Amin Saleh
Mr Henry James Beach
Mr John Leslie Libson

Current Secretaries:
Ms Mary Georgina Austin
[/QUOTE]

Wow. So that's what she' s been up to.


Good information. Its a shame how everything is all so public now

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] For fuck's sake...

Every artist has their albums and greatest hits compilations re-released. This is not going to change.

It's called the music "business", not the music charity.

They've released the Freddie boxed set, plenty of concert DVDs, great bonus tracks on the latest album remasters, and just did two documentaries full of new unseen bits - and there is still far more complaining than gratitude.

Do you think QP is going to be inspired to create a similar Queen boxed set if all people do is complain about the fact that it was a mere 11 discs instead of 14 ?

Seriously - think about it. If the "hardcore" fans are aching for new Queen material and keep complaining when it comes out, why should QP even bother if these very people will never be pleased?[/QUOTE]

That's a completely false argument as these releases weren't for hard-core fans but for the widest possible audience.[/QUOTE]

The 11-disc Freddie boxed set - containing three complete discs of previously unheard material - was catered to the general public and not the hardcore fan? Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it !

If the Freddie boxed set, the complete first night at Wembley on DVD and unreleased songs/takes from 1977-1980 don't interest you - then why in the heck are you posting at a Queen forum?

Look at the latest 6-disc version of Dark Side Of The Moon. About 2 1/2 discs were previously unreleased material (although much of it was out on bootlegs for years in about the same quality). Plenty of hardcores bought it.

Who's to say what a release catered to "hardcore" fans is? Is there some kind of measurable scale? What percentage of a release must be completely previously unheard music for it to quality as a "hardcore friendly" release? 100%?

Let's be realistic. In most cases it just isn't commercially feasible. It very rarely happens, if at all. And if/when it does, some people will complain that the quality of half of the material sucks. It's just sad that some people will always default to their sense of entitlement and find something to complain about.

Your arguments are all over the place, which makes it difficult to offer a focused response. You've argued in the past, for example, that music is not just about profit and yet you use that argument here to defend Queen productions. You also left off your list a number of re-releases but, again, I'm not interested in having a long drawn out discussion of everything that's been released (or not released) since 1991. So in order to avoid regurgitating the same points discussed here before, let's indeed cut to the chase: if music is just a business, then we are consumers and have a right to complain about product. That's it. End of story. Don't like it, then ignore it, but you can' have your cake and eat it too. Now if music isn't just a business and about endless profit for people who could never in their lifetimes spend the money they already have, perhaps Queen might follow the example of bands like Pearl Jam and release a lot of material for dedicated rather than just casual fans. It can be done in plain inexpensive packages and at market-sustaining prices. But Queen have never been that type of band and for all Brian's hippy posturing and Roger's champagne socialism, they're both, at heart, rather shallow when it comes to money and art.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Your arguments are all over the place, which makes it difficult to offer a focused response. You've argued in the past, for example, that music is not just about profit and yet you use that argument here to defend Queen productions. You also left off your list a number of re-releases but, again, I'm not interested in having a long drawn out discussion of everything that's been released (or not released) since 1991. So in order to avoid regurgitating the same points discussed here before, let's indeed cut to the chase: if music is just a business, then we are consumers and have a right to complain about product. That's it. End of story. Don't like it, then ignore it, but you can' have your cake and eat it too. Now if music isn't just a business and about endless profit for people who could never in their lifetimes spend the money they already have, perhaps Queen might follow the example of bands like Pearl Jam and release a lot of material for dedicated rather than just casual fans. It can be done in plain inexpensive packages and at market-sustaining prices. But Queen have never been that type of band and for all Brian's hippy posturing and Roger's champagne socialism, they're both, at heart, rather shallow when it comes to money and art.[/QUOTE]

Fair play all around.

I wouldn't dare accuse QP of regularly releasing products aimed at the hardcore fans. But it's definitely inaccurate to accuse them of having never considered the hardcore fans with their releases. I think we can agree on that.

That said - if we use Pearl Jam as the benchmark (bless them and their perpetual awesomeness), everyone else in the music business is a greedy capitalistic twat in comparison.

At the end of the day, every business finds a balance somewhere between profit and product. Very often one thing has to be sacrificed in favour of the other. But when a band is as wealthy as Queen is, why not throw out the odd thing that isn't going to be a huge seller and make the hardcores happy? That's what the Rainbow 74 release is going to be. The man on the street may not buy that DVD, because they're going to recognize about three songs out of 20.

i don't want to dig too deeply into this argument - primarily to avoid later being accused of calling someone a "c*nt".

suffice to say - EVERY viewpoint stated (so far) is correct - when based solely on the agenda of the individual

hardcore? - then nothing will ever be enough
loyal - journeyman fan? - then a balance of rare and releleases is fine
new fan? any old sh*t will feed the appetite

the bottom line? - in all reality, there's probably only TWO tracks in existence that NO QUEEN FAN has ever heard, and because of that - there'll NEVER be a "rarities" CD release
.
if i had to guess - and it really is only a guess. the reason no "queen anthology" has ever been released seems obvious - THEY DIDN'T KEEP ALL THE TAKES/OUTTAKES. that's why the beatles anthologies were so good - there was loads kept.
think queen's attitude was similar to the BBCs - "these tapes are taking up space - burn them"

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
if i had to guess - and it really is only a guess. the reason no "queen anthology" has ever been released seems obvious - THEY DIDN'T KEEP ALL THE TAKES/OUTTAKES. that's why the beatles anthologies were so good - there was loads kept.
think queen's attitude was similar to the BBCs - "these tapes are taking up space - burn them"[/QUOTE]

I'm not so sure. A ton of studio outtakes have been played at fan conventions, from every period. There's plenty from the Queen II era.

right, ok
but consider this:
apart from queen II which other albums have we heard many outtakes (not demos) from?

look at the beatles stuff as an example
there are some tracks - that i (and i'm not a serious collector) have ten+ takes of
and as for bands like floyd and zep - there's tons of stuff - i know as i listen to lots of it - so consider what else there is?

apart from MOTBQ where are WE aware of a queen track that has many outtakes available? i'm fairly confident that queen's archive has pretty close to f-all comparatively....let's face it, so much stuff has leaked - it'd be surprising if many outtakes exisited.

Comparing to the Beatles isn't really fair. The tapes were likely stolen in the late 60s when the band/business was an absolute mess.

I have little doubt the Queen vaults are full of outtakes. They've just revealed what they want to reveal at any given time. All we can do is speculate.

I think it' best not to think there is music still to come, as waiting for stuff that may not even eventuate seems a bit frustrating and potentially pointless. But I do tend to think there must be at least some stuff left. I mean just at the very end, it's said that Freddie sang just about every line the band gave him. Those bits don't seem to a big part of Made in Heaven as far as I can tell. So what happened to them? Was it unusable or is it still there waiting to be put together at some later date?

It might be that outtakes are also being saved up, because once it's out there, that's it, since there's no more Freddie. But if it does exist, when are they going to see them start releasing it in earnest? I guess you could say that the recent box set might be the start of things to come, but it just may not be too..

If I were to speculate for a moment, I would guess that the Jacko songs would be coming out at some point not far away from the release of the Freddie movie (probably before) in order to maximise the size of the audience who might be interested in seeing the movie. Beyond that, I would think that any additional material might follow not too long a time after that. If that didn't happen, then I would be far less convinced that there is much more of anything left to come.

Considering the age of remaining Q members, release of held recordings should be within the next couple of years. If not, then I would say it isn't going to happen. Not sure why they haven't, or what the thinking is. Could possibly be because they have enough money and simply don't want to deal with it.I am not sure Brian or Roger care very much about the so called hardcore fans. I would think they know how much whining goes on with regard to the long wait. Obviously Deacon doesn't think about you much. I too would love to hear and see more but it won't bother me one way or the other if not.

That business a year or so ago when Brian and Roger went back into the studio to put together one more album from leftovers also suggests that something must be left over, even if it isn't enough to make another first rate album.

If I were to speculate on this point too, it might be that Brian and Roger were trying to get people like us expecting more music again. That would mean that any new music that was released would get more of a reception than if it was simply released into the market cold turkey without any build up.

I mean why else would you create false expectations like that after so long, only to dash them again a few weeks later? So I therefore tend to think something is still coming. What exactly it is and the quality of it, I'm not sure. Maybe just something called Demo Recordings or Offcuts is all, so that people knew it wasn't to be regarded in the same way as Queen's earlier albums. I guess we shall see! Or maybe we won't.

On the question of "what happened to the post-Innuendo 'give me any lines and I'll sing them' thing?" ...

... There's a heck of a difference between having a bunch of lines that might or might not be more or less random, and having something that makes coherent songs worth having.

Also, the whole process of weaving into songs might've been too upsetting. After all, I'd've thought making Mother Love would've been painful.

But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen: Distance might've softened the sense of loss.

Yes Martin. I agree about that extra stuff. It might prove too difficult to weave random bits into something of a good enough standard.

Although I think I read did here or maybe somewhere else that Dave Richards manipulated Living On My Own to come up with You Don't Fool Me. So who knows what's possible? Presumably Brian just put that excellent solo on the end of it and there we have it.

But like you also said, it might be extremely upsetting to do it as well anyway. So the passage of time might help things, although maybe Brian and Roger found it to be an impossible task when they went and had a look at it last year.