Why Brian and Roger are looking like "Rip off" to fans?

edwood: "Greatest Hits" is the uk's biggest selling album ever released. Abba "Greatest Hits" was second but not close enough to grab the crown from Queen.

[QUOTE]

[b]tomchristie22 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]
Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.[/QUOTE]

Bold.[/QUOTE]

Bwahahaha

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits.
just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales

Band/Artist Title Year Sales
.
.
Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24
Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24

[/QUOTE]

Who the hell are the "Barebackstreet Boys" ?

[QUOTE] [b]BETA215 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Jimmy Dean wrote:[/b]

[...] And if you're complaining Queen is ripping you off because they added 3 new tracks to Queen Forever... so you have to buy the whole album to get it... when you know it's available on iTunes separately... again... you're not being forced to pay for anything. [...][/QUOTE]

I'm not agree with the quoted part.

You can buy separately any Queen Forever track in WAV, FLAC, ALAC or in any lossless format?
In this case, you are being forced to buy the full album, if you want to obtain songs legally.

[/QUOTE]

You can't expect Queen (or any other capitalist pig recording artist, lol) to accommodate you... They've given the option to allow you to selectively choose what songs you want in the most widely accepted format...mp3. For the few fans like you who only want 3 songs in lossless form AND don't want to buy it in the CD format... I think you see where i'm going with this... you're not being reasonable.... and you are likely part of a limited group.

The clear majority will either want to buy the CD for collection purposes or will download whatever songs they want off itunes.... even if the flac option was available.

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

Freddie was the one who used to keep May & Taylor in line and as you can now see
anything goes in the Queen camp!
They used to be a classy elusive group but not anymore and Brian has his fingers in all sorts these days.[/QUOTE]

You just make up your own version of reality as you go along, don't you? Your above post has no grounding in fact whatsoever, it's purely wishful thinking on your part.

[QUOTE] [b]musicland munich wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits.
just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales

Band/Artist Title Year Sales
.
.
Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24
Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24

[/QUOTE]

Who the hell are the "Barebackstreet Boys" ?[/QUOTE]

At the risk of being offensive: they're just like the Backstreet Boys, only they don't just suck but also take it up the rear.

[QUOTE] [b]musicland munich wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits.
just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales
Band/Artist Title Year Sales
..
Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24
Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24
[/QUOTE]
Who the hell are the "Barebackstreet Boys" ?[/QUOTE]
que ????

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

primejive usa: You are picking on me for something i never said.
i never said every other group is bigger than Queen, that was "The Real wizard" post and not mine.

"The King of Rhye Sorry to disappoint you but Queen are a bigger group than the Beatles,
they have probably sold more sales than the Beatles and according to "The Record Collector" magazine
are the number one group for serious music collectors.
Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.[/QUOTE]




Uh................no! You could MAYBE say that in the UK.............that Queen is the most 'collectable' group......I saw that once somewhere (whatever the hell that means anyway).............


check your facts once in a while...............look at this for one.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums

[QUOTE]

[b]The King Of Rhye wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

primejive usa: You are picking on me for something i never said.
i never said every other group is bigger than Queen, that was "The Real wizard" post and not mine.

"The King of Rhye Sorry to disappoint you but Queen are a bigger group than the Beatles,
they have probably sold more sales than the Beatles and according to "The Record Collector" magazine
are the number one group for serious music collectors.
Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.[/QUOTE]

check your facts once in a while...............look at this for one.......

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums[/url]

[/QUOTE]

you're wasting your time fella. I posted similar info only a few posts ago in [i]this very thread[/i]. [b]Gezza's[/b] myopia in relation to queen, knows no fucking bounds. it's almost as tho' he's living vicariously through queen's history and rewriting any history/facts that [i]"do no compute" [/i]his rose-tinted view...as he goes. You can't convince him of the facts - no matter [i][b]how much proof [/b][/i]you provide.
Gezza once claimed he'd make a great journalist - well on one score he would - he lives by the jouno maxim:
[i]"never let the truth get in the way of a good story"[/i]

""Freddie was the one who used to keep May & Taylor in line and as you can now see
anything goes in the Queen camp!
They used to be a classy elusive group but not anymore and Brian has his fingers in all sorts these days. ""

Actually the evidence might points to the contrary. Freddie seemed to hold some discipline within band rehearsals and creativity, but it's more likely that Brian and Roger stopped Freddie from going too far in other ways that may have destroyed the band.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]
Queen products in record stores are very hard to find but artists like AC/DC, Zeppelin, Doors, Beatles, Floyd etc are ten a penny and easily found.
Very strange as Queen are more popular than all those groups.[/QUOTE]
not on a world level they're not. I've just come back from a holiday in Boston & New England, and queen definitely fall down the pecking order there behind; Beatles, ACDC, Zep, , Michael jackson, Elvis, Madonna Floyd and Mariah Carey and several others.
Coincidentally, before you say America is bollox, the USA market is FOUR times that of the UK and the USA pecking order perfectly reflects worldwide sales with Queen coming in just below all of the above with the addition Elton John & Celine Dionne - Queen are 12th in the worldwide sales list
So it's easy to see why Queen is a slightly less marketable brand form a merchandise point of view.[/QUOTE]

Bang on.

[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]

(going off to re-read my copy of Atlas Shrugged now...)
[/QUOTE]

You haven't memorized it yet ??! Hang your head in shame, sir.

Anyone who wastes his time reading Ayn Rand is cutting himself short, no matter who he is. Her plays and novels are below mediocre (and that's not just my opinion, but the general consensus of literary reviewers ever since the '30s) and her so-called 'philosophical works' are just pseudo-intellectual hokum, which is why nearly all academics ignore it, except a precious few who have a neo-conservative agenda to push. Sorry, just had to get that out.

As to the original post you quoted:
[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]This might be kinda going off on a tangent here, but....(and maybe this isnt what you meant!).........good lord, I hate it when people say stuff like that...........like making money is a bad, evil, immoral thing (when you get over a certain amount? and who decides what that amount is?)[/QUOTE]

Making money isn't necessarily a bad thing, DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S DONE. There are numerous ways of making money that harm the economy and society at large. For instance, a group of investors want to buy a large, healthy business for $500 million. They borrow $500 million for a year at, let's say (just for the simplicity of calculation, 10%. They buy the company. Now, they have the company they have just bought borrow money to the limit of its credit-worthiness. Let's say that's $750 million. They pay off their loan, $550 million, and divide the remaining $200 million amongst themselves, and pay taxes over this. So far, so good, right? Now comes the twisted, evil part. The formerly healthy business now has a debt of $750 million. Let's say they have an annual profit of $100 million - at the end of the year, they now have an ARTIFICIAL debt of $650 million. Most countries allow businesses to fiscally write off a debt over the current fiscal year as well as several *preceding* years. So now, the formerly healthy company is deep in debt, and instead of paying taxes, they get a HUGE tax return, paid for by the general population of the country and benefiting those investors who have already made $200 million off their purchase. The credit rating of the formerly healthy company is ruined, and it is often most profitable to split the company up and sell it off bit by bit, thus resulting in increased unemployment.

There is also another, oft overlooked, economic factor. Money only has value when it is in circulation. Money that is hoarded is economically unproductive and in real terms, any sum that is hoarded in a given year is extracted from the economy at large. The larger the amount of money an individual has, the larger (generally, this doesn't apply to every individual rich person but it does apply to the whole averaged out) the sum that is hoarded. Say someone has $10 million in gold stashed away. Ok, you pay a small amount of tax on this, but as Thomas Piketty has incontrovertably demonstrated, the rate at which capital appreciates value is far higher than the rate at which it is taxed. But there is something else to take into account here, a concept called "velocity of money": if you take $100 dollars out of the economy, you're not harming the economy by $100 dollars, but by a multiple thereof, because when I spend $100 dollars in a productive way (i.e. to buy goods or services), the person who receives the $100 dollars also gets to spend it, and again and again. In practice, the velocity of money is between 1.5 (in really bad depression situations, in 2009 in the US it was 1.65) and about 2.3. So if it's 2, that means hoarding $10 million dollars harms the real economy by $20 million.

So, when the accumulation of wealth results in money being hoarded, this is harmful for the economy and thus society at large.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Anyone who wastes his time reading Ayn Rand is cutting himself short, no matter who he is.[/QUOTE]

.. I was being grotesquely sarcastic !

I actually think that May and Taylor and the rest of the team have done extraordinarily well. Since Mr Mercury died all those years ago they have raised the band to legend status. That has been done by pushing and positioning themselves in certain circles. The numerous compilations is nothing but par for the course - all artists do it. From Bach to Abba to Alice Cooper to Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson. May and Taylor have kept their relevance going and still managed to create new audiences who never even realised they liked Queen. Kids like Queen who werent even born when Mr Deacon retired. Artists still cite them as influences. They are still on the cover of magazines. Even The Rolling Stones writes about them in a positive way. And being a fan since NATO, its incredible that a band so slated everywhere are now loved. It really is strange. If you were around when Queen were up and running youll know that no one ever spoke about them like they do today. Sometimes its hard to believe the critics are talking about the same band (and for all those saying that now Mercury has passed away they are just in it for the money, lets not forget South Africa. It doesnt get lower than that). And you know, you should try and enjoy it because all this will eventually slow down and stop. The machine will grind to a halt. Mr Taylor and May are now nearing 70 and cant keep doing this. And that means no more new tracks. No more new mastering. No more live shows. No more interviews. No more magazine covers. It literally wasnt that long ago when people talked of The Beatles as being the greatest band the world had ever seen. Compilations galore. Now they hardly get a mention. Queen lasting this long is incredible. But eventually age does catch up with you. So im just enjoying the ride while they are still around. And active.