An earlier post above raises a good questions as to the size of venues played by bands that went to certain territories before Queen. Did they play football stadia/huge fields to 50,000-150,000, or where they arenas (5,000-15,000), theatres (1,000+), or clubs (500+). Queen were certainly not the first in a lot of those territores as is the folklore, but they may have been the first on an 'industrial scale', requiring Government interventions, major press announcements etc...?
Sue Dounim · Member since
did any big rock band before Led Zeppelin play specifically in Hiroshima?
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]master marathon runner wrote:[/b]
Sebastian, do you have any info on how many gigs they played on a Wednesday?[/QUOTE]
Sebastian, do you have any info on how many gigs they played on a Wednesday?[/QUOTE]
Yes.[/QUOTE]
That's the only right answer right there.
The King Of Rhye · Member since
Speaking of uncharted territory.....I just read that last year Metallica became the first band to play on 7 continents, when they played some sort of concert in Antarctica.... (or is that 4, or 5, or whatever? lol)
Ozz · Member since
As a southamerican I must say the nitpicking here is a bit too much. (as usual)
Was Christopher Columbus the first to reach the coasts of America? Not at all. But he's recognized as the one who discovered this whole new world....
81' Queen tour in SouthAmerica was HUGE ! and build the grounds to bigger things like Rock in Rio later in 85.
In that sense, they totally conquered uncharted territories here.
All the disco acts don't count at all, they were circus for the upper class during the dictatorship years.
Even Van Halen seems to have gone unnoticed for what I can tell here...
You may be right about the soviet countries and all the east ... Queen was one more of many.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
As a southamerican
[/QUOTE]
Origin doesn't, and shouldn't, add or detract relevance from a claim. Had you been born in Malaysia, Zambia or Kosovo, should we ignore your comment?
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
the nitpicking here is a bit too much.
[/QUOTE]
But how much is too much? Who defines that?
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
(as usual)
[/QUOTE]
How frequent is 'as usual'? Who defines that?
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
Was Christopher Columbus the first to reach the coasts of America? Not at all. But he's recognized as the one who discovered this whole new world....[/QUOTE]
In fact, nowadays he's largely not. He's used exactly as you just have: as an example of someone who, instead of being the first, was the umpteenth person to reach the new continent.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
He didn't even reach the continent - never got beyond the Caribbean.
Sebastian · Member since
All in all, comparing Queen to Columbus is offensive at best. It's largely been recognised that he did NOT discover the new world and there's a lot of controversy surrounding Columbus' day. It's even reached memetic mutation levels.
So maybe yeah, thinking Queen were the first to play in South America is as wrong as thinking Columbus was the first European to set foot in the Caribbean.
Didn't Christopher Columbus circumcise the world in a forty-feet cutter?? (Sorry, I'll get my coat!!)
hobbit in Rhye · Member since
Thank you for ruining my idolization, Sebastian.
After your several correct-the-fact threads, now I know that Queen isn't the first, nor the best, in anything whatsoever.
(That was a joke by the way. I'm grateful to your stats, though I'm not often agree with your point of view.)
Sebastian · Member since
Point is, I take back what I said about comparing Queen to Columbus: it's not offensive at all, it's quite spot on indeed.
What Columbus did wasn't by any means insignificant. He did not, however, discover the earth was round; he was not, either, the first to reach (islands located closely to) the new world.
What Queen did in South America and Mexico wasn't by any means insignificant. They did some marvellous concerts which certainly influenced other acts and spread the interest in going to those territories and establishing a more direct contact with fan bases there. They were not, however, the first to go to Mexico and South America; they were not, either, the first to play in large venues in Mexico and South America; they were not, either, the first to have successful visits to Mexico and South America ... in fact, only their visits to South America were actually successful, as their trip to Mexico, according to Roger, 'was hell!'
Ozz · Member since
That's all I've said. Not being the first does not mean that what they did was insignificant. And any person folowwing the development of local bands , "Rock Latino" as we called them back then, would see the huge Queen influence.
But you tend to try to own the facts, when most of us, can give as best, just opinions, and correcting every single piece of paragraph does not help to build community and comunication.. Sheldon.
Being a Queen fan, is what joins people's of different cultures and occupations here and everywhere on the net. I know I've been upset when I was younger by those groups of "greatest hits" fans as we called them, that they believed all sorts of untrue myths about the band, but does that really matter? I've read plenty of informative post of many people here that doesn't end up in trashing other's people's opinions. I've seen many confrontational topics where some legendary members of Qz just took time to talk about their facts and sources without being an ass about it. But when you grow up, you realize that all this mental masturbation it's useless. There's so much to learn and live out there.
Queen wasn't the first, big deal. But no one can downplay what it meant back then, much less people from the other hemisphere where they had any band they wanted for decades.
I'm willing to say that probably the only other bands that had a huge influence in SouthAmerica during the 80's were Kiss and Iron Maiden, and they came later.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
That's all I've said.
[/QUOTE]
No, that's not all. You said nitpicking was too much, which is ambiguous. You also said other things.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
Not being the first does not mean that what they did was insignificant.
[/QUOTE]
There we agree.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
But you tend to try to own the facts
[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. Facts cannot be owned, anyway.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
when most of us, can give as best, just opinions
[/QUOTE]
Opinions are very valuable, I'm not denying that. Certain things, however, are not a matter of opinion. Brian was born before Roger, full stop (assuming, of course, we all agree on what 'being born' and 'before' mean and assuming, of course, we all agree on which Brian and which Roger we're referring to).
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
correcting every single piece of paragraph[/QUOTE]
But nobody's done that. From your current message, I didn't say anything on Queen's influence on Latin American bands. Just because of that, it's already not *every single piece of paragraph.* And that, by the way, it *not* an opinion. Either every single piece was corrected or not, and in this case, it was not, full stop.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
does not help to build community and comunication
[/QUOTE]
Actually, communication is built when people communicate. We're communicating, so it does help.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
Sheldon.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know what that has to do with this.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
Being a Queen fan, is what joins people's of different cultures and occupations here and everywhere on the net.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. People of different cultures and occupations can find many other common denominators other than fondness of the band.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
they believed all sorts of untrue myths about the band, but does that really matter?
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes. It doesn't need to matter to *you*, but maybe other people do care about those false myths. If you don't, don't read or take part of these threads, simple as that. I don't care about Freddie's relationships (unless they had some effect on his music or research about it, such as David Minn's comments on the rough mix of 'Bo Rhap' helping establishing a timeline and disproving the theory of a 24th of August start of the 'Opera' sessions).
If there's a thread about Freddie's relationship to Tony Bastin, or Brian's relationship to Anita Dobson, or Roger's relationship to Debbie, or John being at a strip club, I generally refrain from reading or writing there, as it's none of my business. But I respect that, to other people, those things do matter.
What I completely disagree with is going to a thread you allegedly don't care about and trying to persuade people not to care about it either.
To your 'does it really matter', I reply: does it really matter that to some people it matters?
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
I've read plenty of informative post of many people here that doesn't end up in trashing other's people's opinions.
[/QUOTE]
So have I. This thread, for instance, fulfils all those traits: it's informative, it's got many people's participation, and it doesn't end up trashing other people's opinions. Except on your post.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
But when you grow up, you realize that all this mental masturbation it's useless.
[/QUOTE]
Except that it's not mental masturbation, and it's not useless.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
There's so much to learn and live out there.
[/QUOTE]
That's very true, and one of the things you can learn is that if you think nitpicking is too much, it doesn't mean it's universally 'too much.' If you don't care other people believe false myths, it doesn't mean you're entitled to ask others not to care either. People are different.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
Queen wasn't the first, big deal.
[/QUOTE]
To some people, it is indeed a big deal. If it matters to you, it doesn't mean it will matter to everyone else, and viceversa.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
But no one can downplay what it meant back then
[/QUOTE]
Of course they can. They'd be wrong to do so, but of course they can.
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
I'm willing to say that probably the only other bands that had a huge influence in SouthAmerica during the 80's were Kiss and Iron Maiden, and they came later.
[/QUOTE]
But again, the concept of 'huge' is vague.
Mr.QueenFan · Member since
I think this is a great topic, and last year i was about to open a thread like this one but only about the South American tour, so i really appreciate that you - Sebastian - took the time to research and post this information.
Before i give my opinion i want to say that i like facts. Of course it´s great to hear that Queen were huge in South America, but i don´t think it´s great to be misleaded by their marketing. Remember the Freddie´s last vocal take was two weeks before he died?
And the amount of discussions on this forum based on false claims by QP. I like to talk with music fans about statistics, and when i found out that i was wrong, misleaded by marketing team of QP or other, it makes me appreciate this threads even more.
So, what i was going to post last year came when i was reading Julio Iglesias official site:
http://www.julioiglesias.com/pagina.php?cs_id_pagina=3&cs_id_contenido=60
On the "Cronology" section, it reads:
"1977- Beat the record in Chile for an audience where more than 100,000 people gathered for his concert held at the National Stadium in Santiago, a performance that was considered the largest musical event in history."
(by the way, reading Julio Iglesias achievements puts many things into perspective when it comes to success. It´s a great read!)
Here´s the Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B3tKK66P2M
So, of course i was a bit angry when i read this because unlike what people say in documentaries, Queen were not the first foreign act to play a stadium in South America. Julio Iglesias is spanish and he did it before, and he could have easily sell-out any stadium in that territory.
And because i love Queen, i want to be able to trust their team, but i have come to a point where i really don´t care about what QP says anymore unless i hear it from Roger, Brian or John, who are not accurate sometimes, but i still trust that they say what they believe to be true (i.e. honest mistakes).
