Its a shame that this documentary that seems to have temporarily quenched our thirst was not offerd to us by queen!
Why cant they just give us something!!!!!!!!!
crazy duck
Thread
Posts in chronological order
k-m
A very good programme indeed, but I wouldn't say better than "The Great Pretender" or "DOOL". It's certainly different, because it's very intimate and subjective, Mercury's genius and persona seen through the eyes of an opera singer and a long time fan. Very refreshing take for us, fans, but I don't think it would be as compelling for a non-fan. Also, it has some proper gems in it (Freddie at 17, Brian's acoustic SCC, new interviews). Well done indeed.
Queenfansunite
[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Queenfansunite wrote:[/b]
The PRATTS prat attack
....
Homophobic dismissal of his brilliant creative persona calling it prat like and then heteromesuxlaisation idol worship of the gay angle which is political sexism.
Freddie was a individual and didn't ride anyone's boat to his creative ideas success or presentation of himself , he wasn't into " gay " rights.
PRATTS![/QUOTE]
What exactly do you mean by "heteromesuxlaisation idol worship of the gay angle " ?
As for "he wasn't into " gay " rights" . Its true but it was a different era, he had personal struggles with his sexuality and to a digree ( after he became famous) he could afford not to care about " gay " rights.
When "gay rights" became hot again with the HIV crisis, he was already infected and chose to channel all of his anguish ,sadness and (inevitable) anger into musical creativity.
[/QUOTE]
Metrosexualisation I meant
I mean it's all politics, back then it was cool to laugh at gay people, and that article was a cloaked attack on Freddie a s a gay type of entertainer , but Freddie , he used all his imagination in order to present a entertaining personality, in his music, his stage show and even in his interviews.
But now, it politics again, I mean they cannot do that today, because of politics again, it's all politics.
And as for HIV, it is politics also, as is AIDS, it's politics and the greatest crime against humanity in recent human history.
lIke you said , Freddie's response was to finish his great work as a amazingly talented musician.
it was NOT politics or gay rights, because as far as Freddie was concerned GAY as a problem had been solved in regards to politics in 1967' as IT had already been given IT'S rights in 1967.
End of
And now they idolise the gay politics they have created. They have to or they get the sack.
But it was refreshing that this documentary did not do that , and instead allowed Freddie's talent to the forefront, instead of the bogus parading of a gay identity meaning anything, when it doesn't, as that is for his private bedroom and is not a talent, but merely a sexual preference.
[QUOTE] [b]Queenfansunite wrote:[/b]
The PRATTS prat attack
....
Homophobic dismissal of his brilliant creative persona calling it prat like and then heteromesuxlaisation idol worship of the gay angle which is political sexism.
Freddie was a individual and didn't ride anyone's boat to his creative ideas success or presentation of himself , he wasn't into " gay " rights.
PRATTS![/QUOTE]
What exactly do you mean by "heteromesuxlaisation idol worship of the gay angle " ?
As for "he wasn't into " gay " rights" . Its true but it was a different era, he had personal struggles with his sexuality and to a digree ( after he became famous) he could afford not to care about " gay " rights.
When "gay rights" became hot again with the HIV crisis, he was already infected and chose to channel all of his anguish ,sadness and (inevitable) anger into musical creativity.
[/QUOTE]
Metrosexualisation I meant
I mean it's all politics, back then it was cool to laugh at gay people, and that article was a cloaked attack on Freddie a s a gay type of entertainer , but Freddie , he used all his imagination in order to present a entertaining personality, in his music, his stage show and even in his interviews.
But now, it politics again, I mean they cannot do that today, because of politics again, it's all politics.
And as for HIV, it is politics also, as is AIDS, it's politics and the greatest crime against humanity in recent human history.
lIke you said , Freddie's response was to finish his great work as a amazingly talented musician.
it was NOT politics or gay rights, because as far as Freddie was concerned GAY as a problem had been solved in regards to politics in 1967' as IT had already been given IT'S rights in 1967.
End of
And now they idolise the gay politics they have created. They have to or they get the sack.
But it was refreshing that this documentary did not do that , and instead allowed Freddie's talent to the forefront, instead of the bogus parading of a gay identity meaning anything, when it doesn't, as that is for his private bedroom and is not a talent, but merely a sexual preference.
Queenfansunite
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
I agree this was a good programme. My favourite parts were seeing a teenage shy Freddie, and listening to Freddie and Monserrat fooling around in the studio.
It was also entertaining to listen to Bob Geldof saying that Freddie can't possibly be called a good-looking man, and that all the Queen guys looked "weird". I can't say I agree with him though. I think Freddie WAS good-looking, at least in the 1980s (he did look somewhat ugly in the 1970s), and I don't think Queen as a whole looked any more peculiar than any other band. And Freddie's style on stage was super cool.
Geldof did a lot of good for the world, and he's been through hell (and is still going through it, unfortunately, with the latest tragedy). But he's a bit of a shit. Kind of like Bono.[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree, Freddie was very very handsome.
Some times looked rough though in the 70's because of terrible photography and sweat, but we get to see all the photos nowadays, but there was a time you did not see the poorer ones. But Some show how handsome he was back then with long hair.
But he was very handsome and more , had probably the greatest charisma of ANY Rock Star ever,
More even than ELVIS I would say.
I am sure everyone agrees with that.
Maybe he and Elvis were equals in the charisma department. I may be going overboard on that, but definitely he WAS equal to him.
When I see him on tv
I say
its Freddie bloody Mercury!
In amazement .
I can't get over how amazing he was!
I agree this was a good programme. My favourite parts were seeing a teenage shy Freddie, and listening to Freddie and Monserrat fooling around in the studio.
It was also entertaining to listen to Bob Geldof saying that Freddie can't possibly be called a good-looking man, and that all the Queen guys looked "weird". I can't say I agree with him though. I think Freddie WAS good-looking, at least in the 1980s (he did look somewhat ugly in the 1970s), and I don't think Queen as a whole looked any more peculiar than any other band. And Freddie's style on stage was super cool.
Geldof did a lot of good for the world, and he's been through hell (and is still going through it, unfortunately, with the latest tragedy). But he's a bit of a shit. Kind of like Bono.[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree, Freddie was very very handsome.
Some times looked rough though in the 70's because of terrible photography and sweat, but we get to see all the photos nowadays, but there was a time you did not see the poorer ones. But Some show how handsome he was back then with long hair.
But he was very handsome and more , had probably the greatest charisma of ANY Rock Star ever,
More even than ELVIS I would say.
I am sure everyone agrees with that.
Maybe he and Elvis were equals in the charisma department. I may be going overboard on that, but definitely he WAS equal to him.
When I see him on tv
I say
its Freddie bloody Mercury!
In amazement .
I can't get over how amazing he was!
Stelios
[QUOTE]
[b]Queenfansunite wrote:[/b] Metrosexualisation I meant
I mean it's all politics, back then it was cool to laugh at gay people, and that article was a cloaked attack on Freddie a s a gay type of entertainer , but Freddie , he used all his imagination in order to present a entertaining personality, in his music, his stage show and even in his interviews.
But now, it politics again, I mean they cannot do that today, because of politics again, it's all politics.
And as for HIV, it is politics also, as is AIDS, it's politics and the greatest crime against humanity in recent human history.
lIke you said , Freddie's response was to finish his great work as a amazingly talented musician.
it was NOT politics or gay rights, because as far as Freddie was concerned GAY as a problem had been solved in regards to politics in 1967' as IT had already been given IT'S rights in 1967.
End of
And now they idolise the gay politics they have created. They have to or they get the sack.
But it was refreshing that this documentary did not do that , and instead allowed Freddie's talent to the forefront, instead of the bogus parading of a gay identity meaning anything, when it doesn't, as that is for his private bedroom and is not a talent, but merely a sexual preference.[/QUOTE]
on " [b]to laugh at gay people[/b]"
Freddie himshelf was not that politically corect in that concept. Yesterday i listened the Osaka live booklet were he introduced Elton John as "a famous poofter".
In the making of video of Breakthrough you can hear him calling someone fag.
Of course its not the same but shows he had a certain attitude towards this issues. Taking everything with a bit of salt.
on[b] "it was NOT politics or gay rights"
[/b]True, but if the personal is also political ( a famous quote from the 70's i think) Freddie embodied those issues. On regards to gender identity he presented himshelf very fluid from camp/feminime to macho, underlying that gender is a form of expression and constraction NOT an identity written in stone. And this one shakes the very foundation of how society perceives genders.
He may did it unconsciously but with such audacity and power that effected more the general subconsious than strickt political talking or theoritical analysis .
He became the living proof of how male/female identity works and manifests itshelf without having to say one word.
To a certain amount the same goes with sexuality. Barbara Valentine's and Mary Austin's roles in his life blured the perception of what is and what is not a gay man.
on "[b]And now they idolise the gay politics they have created"
[/b]
This is a given.
Every oppresed minority that achieved some form or tottal liberation has to celebrate the milestone.
It's human nature.
Perhaps sometimes is overbearing and off putting but remember that they also celebrate the lives of those who have been lost bue to the oppression. Its a very charged concept becouse it even touches matters of life or death and not necessarily in the past.
Hate crimes are very evident today also. Look at Russia for example.
[b]Queenfansunite wrote:[/b] Metrosexualisation I meant
I mean it's all politics, back then it was cool to laugh at gay people, and that article was a cloaked attack on Freddie a s a gay type of entertainer , but Freddie , he used all his imagination in order to present a entertaining personality, in his music, his stage show and even in his interviews.
But now, it politics again, I mean they cannot do that today, because of politics again, it's all politics.
And as for HIV, it is politics also, as is AIDS, it's politics and the greatest crime against humanity in recent human history.
lIke you said , Freddie's response was to finish his great work as a amazingly talented musician.
it was NOT politics or gay rights, because as far as Freddie was concerned GAY as a problem had been solved in regards to politics in 1967' as IT had already been given IT'S rights in 1967.
End of
And now they idolise the gay politics they have created. They have to or they get the sack.
But it was refreshing that this documentary did not do that , and instead allowed Freddie's talent to the forefront, instead of the bogus parading of a gay identity meaning anything, when it doesn't, as that is for his private bedroom and is not a talent, but merely a sexual preference.[/QUOTE]
on " [b]to laugh at gay people[/b]"
Freddie himshelf was not that politically corect in that concept. Yesterday i listened the Osaka live booklet were he introduced Elton John as "a famous poofter".
In the making of video of Breakthrough you can hear him calling someone fag.
Of course its not the same but shows he had a certain attitude towards this issues. Taking everything with a bit of salt.
on[b] "it was NOT politics or gay rights"
[/b]True, but if the personal is also political ( a famous quote from the 70's i think) Freddie embodied those issues. On regards to gender identity he presented himshelf very fluid from camp/feminime to macho, underlying that gender is a form of expression and constraction NOT an identity written in stone. And this one shakes the very foundation of how society perceives genders.
He may did it unconsciously but with such audacity and power that effected more the general subconsious than strickt political talking or theoritical analysis .
He became the living proof of how male/female identity works and manifests itshelf without having to say one word.
To a certain amount the same goes with sexuality. Barbara Valentine's and Mary Austin's roles in his life blured the perception of what is and what is not a gay man.
on "[b]And now they idolise the gay politics they have created"
[/b]
This is a given.
Every oppresed minority that achieved some form or tottal liberation has to celebrate the milestone.
It's human nature.
Perhaps sometimes is overbearing and off putting but remember that they also celebrate the lives of those who have been lost bue to the oppression. Its a very charged concept becouse it even touches matters of life or death and not necessarily in the past.
Hate crimes are very evident today also. Look at Russia for example.
Queenfansunite
[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Queenfansunite wrote:[/b] Metrosexualisation I meant
I mean it's all politics, back then it was cool to laugh at gay people, and that article was a cloaked attack on Freddie a s a gay type of entertainer , but Freddie , he used all his imagination in order to present a entertaining personality, in his music, his stage show and even in his interviews.
But now, it politics again, I mean they cannot do that today, because of politics again, it's all politics.
And as for HIV, it is politics also, as is AIDS, it's politics and the greatest crime against humanity in recent human history.
lIke you said , Freddie's response was to finish his great work as a amazingly talented musician.
it was NOT politics or gay rights, because as far as Freddie was concerned GAY as a problem had been solved in regards to politics in 1967' as IT had already been given IT'S rights in 1967.
End of
And now they idolise the gay politics they have created. They have to or they get the sack.
But it was refreshing that this documentary did not do that , and instead allowed Freddie's talent to the forefront, instead of the bogus parading of a gay identity meaning anything, when it doesn't, as that is for his private bedroom and is not a talent, but merely a sexual preference.[/QUOTE]
on " [b]to laugh at gay people[/b]"
Freddie himshelf was not that politically corect in that concept. Yesterday i listened the Osaka live booklet were he introduced Elton John as "a famous poofter".
In the making of video of Breakthrough you can hear him calling someone fag.
Of course its not the same but shows he had a certain attitude towards this issues. Taking everything with a bit of salt.
on[b] "it was NOT politics or gay rights"
[/b]True, but if the personal is also political ( a famous quote from the 70's i think) Freddie embodied those issues. On regards to gender identity he presented himshelf very fluid from camp/feminime to macho, underlying that gender is a form of expression and constraction NOT an identity written in stone. And this one shakes the very foundation of how society perceives genders.
He may did it unconsciously but with such audacity and power that effected more the general subconsious than strickt political talking or theoritical analysis .
He became the living proof of how male/female identity works and manifests itshelf without having to say one word.
To a certain amount the same goes with sexuality. Barbara Valentine's and Mary Austin's roles in his life blured the perception of what is and what is not a gay man.
on "[b]And now they idolise the gay politics they have created"
[/b]
This is a given.
Every oppresed minority that achieved some form or tottal liberation has to celebrate the milestone.
It's human nature.
Perhaps sometimes is overbearing and off putting but remember that they also celebrate the lives of those who have been lost bue to the oppression. Its a very charged concept becouse it even touches matters of life or death and not necessarily in the past.
Hate crimes are very evident today also. Look at Russia for example.[/QUOTE]
That's a given. I don't believe in hate crimes, and this the problem. if someone is murdered or beaten up, the motive is irrelevant and should only be used to prove the culprit if needed.
Calling something a hate crime is political
If someone beats someone up or worse murders them the motive is irrelevant , it's still assault or murder. This is why is say its politics this gay thing is all politics.
To give a reason for the culprit beating somebody up as hate crime is like giving a justification of excuse!
It's REDICULOUS and flies in the face of equality under the law and makes it special, when it isn't special, murder is murder and assault is assault
The reasons behind why the crime is committed does not make it ANY different.
You cannot be truly fighting for a equality when you have equality in the law anyway. It's flogging a dead horse. In England in 1967 homosexuality was made legal for those over the age of 21. That suited Freddie fine, and is enough is it not?
What else is there other than calling people names and acting superior and judging others?
But a crime is a crime it is not a "hate crime" that is bullshit and its politics.
[QUOTE]
[b]Queenfansunite wrote:[/b] Metrosexualisation I meant
I mean it's all politics, back then it was cool to laugh at gay people, and that article was a cloaked attack on Freddie a s a gay type of entertainer , but Freddie , he used all his imagination in order to present a entertaining personality, in his music, his stage show and even in his interviews.
But now, it politics again, I mean they cannot do that today, because of politics again, it's all politics.
And as for HIV, it is politics also, as is AIDS, it's politics and the greatest crime against humanity in recent human history.
lIke you said , Freddie's response was to finish his great work as a amazingly talented musician.
it was NOT politics or gay rights, because as far as Freddie was concerned GAY as a problem had been solved in regards to politics in 1967' as IT had already been given IT'S rights in 1967.
End of
And now they idolise the gay politics they have created. They have to or they get the sack.
But it was refreshing that this documentary did not do that , and instead allowed Freddie's talent to the forefront, instead of the bogus parading of a gay identity meaning anything, when it doesn't, as that is for his private bedroom and is not a talent, but merely a sexual preference.[/QUOTE]
on " [b]to laugh at gay people[/b]"
Freddie himshelf was not that politically corect in that concept. Yesterday i listened the Osaka live booklet were he introduced Elton John as "a famous poofter".
In the making of video of Breakthrough you can hear him calling someone fag.
Of course its not the same but shows he had a certain attitude towards this issues. Taking everything with a bit of salt.
on[b] "it was NOT politics or gay rights"
[/b]True, but if the personal is also political ( a famous quote from the 70's i think) Freddie embodied those issues. On regards to gender identity he presented himshelf very fluid from camp/feminime to macho, underlying that gender is a form of expression and constraction NOT an identity written in stone. And this one shakes the very foundation of how society perceives genders.
He may did it unconsciously but with such audacity and power that effected more the general subconsious than strickt political talking or theoritical analysis .
He became the living proof of how male/female identity works and manifests itshelf without having to say one word.
To a certain amount the same goes with sexuality. Barbara Valentine's and Mary Austin's roles in his life blured the perception of what is and what is not a gay man.
on "[b]And now they idolise the gay politics they have created"
[/b]
This is a given.
Every oppresed minority that achieved some form or tottal liberation has to celebrate the milestone.
It's human nature.
Perhaps sometimes is overbearing and off putting but remember that they also celebrate the lives of those who have been lost bue to the oppression. Its a very charged concept becouse it even touches matters of life or death and not necessarily in the past.
Hate crimes are very evident today also. Look at Russia for example.[/QUOTE]
That's a given. I don't believe in hate crimes, and this the problem. if someone is murdered or beaten up, the motive is irrelevant and should only be used to prove the culprit if needed.
Calling something a hate crime is political
If someone beats someone up or worse murders them the motive is irrelevant , it's still assault or murder. This is why is say its politics this gay thing is all politics.
To give a reason for the culprit beating somebody up as hate crime is like giving a justification of excuse!
It's REDICULOUS and flies in the face of equality under the law and makes it special, when it isn't special, murder is murder and assault is assault
The reasons behind why the crime is committed does not make it ANY different.
You cannot be truly fighting for a equality when you have equality in the law anyway. It's flogging a dead horse. In England in 1967 homosexuality was made legal for those over the age of 21. That suited Freddie fine, and is enough is it not?
What else is there other than calling people names and acting superior and judging others?
But a crime is a crime it is not a "hate crime" that is bullshit and its politics.
dragonfly.trumpeter 61319
inu-liger
"hopefully we can get this garbage removed"
Well the United States of Government are working on this issue, and Canary Wharf and in particular, 8, Canada Square E14 is the first target but there are many others in Zone 2 and Zone 1 of London.
Graham David Bruton
"hopefully we can get this garbage removed"
Well the United States of Government are working on this issue, and Canary Wharf and in particular, 8, Canada Square E14 is the first target but there are many others in Zone 2 and Zone 1 of London.
Graham David Bruton