Links to interviews with Bowie about Freddie/Queen/Under Pressure?

I agree essentially with the point you're making Sebastian...and i don't agree Freddie/Montsy collaboration compares but neither do your examples.

I think the truth is what you said initially about it being a focus on less than 5% of Bowie's career...if a documentary mentions his collaboration with Queen, surely it should mention his collaboration with John Lennon, Bing Crosby, Mick Jagger, Pet Shop Boys etc. Half the documentary would be about other people!

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

[QUOTE] [b]Richard Orchard wrote:[/b]

previously, he did say it stood up better as a "demo". i think you are right with Gail Ann Dorsey, who is a massive Queen fan. Her favourite band i believe.

R[/QUOTE]

Very true - back in 2005 she was Brian and Roger's chosen bassist for the Q+PR tour, but Rodgers didn't want her for ego reasons; see it in her own words here:

http://www.deangoodman.com/gail-ann-dorsey

/[/QUOTE]

Dorsey, so talented, yet manages to be the least sexy woman in the world. She's a lesbian, right?

[QUOTE] [b]Supersonic_Man89 wrote:[/b]

I think the truth is what you said initially about it being a focus on less than 5% of Bowie's career...if a documentary mentions his collaboration with Queen, surely it should mention his collaboration with John Lennon, Bing Crosby, Mick Jagger, Pet Shop Boys etc. Half the documentary would be about other people![/QUOTE]

Yes. I think a much simpler and better reasoning than the examples I mentioned is that 'Under Pressure' represents much more to the Queen world than to the Bowie world, despite David having been such a massive part of its songwriting, arranging, producing and performing. For Queen, it was one of the milestones of their career; for David, it was Tuesday (well ... whichever day that jam session was!).

I agree with Wizard and Sebastian - it's easy enough for Queen fans to think of Under Pressure as the greatest thing Bowie ever touched, but the fact is it was just a blip (though a brilliant blip) in a phenomenal and eclectic career.

thanks for sharing interview with Gail Ann - it's a shame, she didn't join Queen on tour, it could be amazing, always loved he on stage with Bowie.

Indeed, A missed opportunity. Brian, Roger & Gail Ann would have been more appealing to me than Brian, Roger & Paul Rodgers.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

Should every Queen doco go out of its way to include info on the 1998 version of 'Another One Bites the Dust'? It's billed as Queen / Wyclef Jean and it charted higher in Britain than the original song (and far higher in Britain than 'Under Pressure' in America).[/QUOTE]

I would rather that particular version was banished completely.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

Should every Queen doco go out of its way to include info on the 1998 version of 'Another One Bites the Dust'? It's billed as Queen / Wyclef Jean and it charted higher in Britain than the original song (and far higher in Britain than 'Under Pressure' in America).[/QUOTE]

Just read a few of your posts and I think you concentrate so much on details that you are completely missing the bigger picture man. It's probably disputable just how much Bowie fans regard UP, but it is a fact it was the second most downloaded and streamed song in the week after his death in the US (Google it). I also wouldn't overestimate it, as I am well aware of the colossal legacy it is up against, but still it was and still is one of Bowie's and Queen's biggest hits. The Wyclef remix... So what that it hit no. 5 in the UK back in 1998? Nobody cares about it these days and people just want the original. Also, if you really want to analyse each song and it's performance inch by inch, then I think you should also take into account the number of weeks it actually spent in the charts. As far as I remember the UK charts in the late 90s, it was usually a high debut and then a very quick descent for many similar hits. I bet it was out of the charts real quick, just like "Innuendo" which you also mentioned earlier.

[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]

Just read a few of your posts and I think you concentrate so much on details that you are completely missing the bigger picture man. [/QUOTE]

The bigger picture is that 'Under Pressure' represents far more in the Queenverse than in the Bowieverse. As such, the overwhelming majority of Queen docos (except, of course, the ones that don't get to that period, such as 'From Rags to Rhapsody') will include it (sometimes in detail) but not necessarily the Bowie docos.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]

Just read a few of your posts and I think you concentrate so much on details that you are completely missing the bigger picture man. [/QUOTE]

The bigger picture is that 'Under Pressure' represents far more in the Queenverse than in the Bowieverse. As such, the overwhelming majority of Queen docos (except, of course, the ones that don't get to that period, such as 'From Rags to Rhapsody') will include it (sometimes in detail) but not necessarily the Bowie docos.[/QUOTE]

That depends how you measure it. For instance, if you were to compare the two artists using No1 hits in the UK as the comparison, then Queen and Bowie have about the same number (Queen=6; Bowie=5, but I am loathe to count Five's WWRY as a Queen hit), so you could argue that it means about as much to Bowie/Bowie fans as it does to Queen/Queen fans.

You could always add 'Ice, Ice Baby' to their No 1 tally, in which case 'Under Pressure' sort of counts twice.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b] You could always add 'Ice, Ice Baby' to their No 1 tally, in which case 'Under Pressure' sort of counts twice.[/QUOTE]

I could but I would be wrong to do that and it wouldn't alter my point in any way.

I understand your point Holly2003...but i don't think artists like Queen, Bowie, Stones, Elton John etc. are measured by number one hits, they mean more than the charts.

Luke's shocking fact for why you can't take the charts seriously...Excluding collaborations, Justin Bieber had more UK number one's in 2015 than Queen, Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Genisis, Prince, The Cure, Bob Dylan, Guns n' Roses, Aerosmith, Paul McCartney, The Smiths, Kate Bush, Eric Clapton had COMBINED for the duration of the 80's.

[QUOTE]

[b]Supersonic_Man89 wrote: [/b] I understand your point Holly2003...but i don't think artists like Queen, Bowie, Stones, Elton John etc. are measured by number one hits, they mean more than the charts.

Luke's shocking fact for why you can't take the charts seriously...Excluding collaborations, Justin Bieber had more UK number one's in 2015 than Queen, Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Genisis, Prince, The Cure, Bob Dylan, Guns n' Roses, Aerosmith, Paul McCartney, The Smiths, Kate Bush, Eric Clapton had COMBINED for the duration of the 80's.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. That's why I offered the remark "That depends how you measure it." So far only k-m and I have offered any observations about how we might test the assertion that UP means more in the Queenieverse(!) than in the Bowieverse. I have no real opinion one way or the other. If I had to guess, I would guess that it does mean more to Queen fans. But for those who are absolutely certain about this, it's up to them to provide the evidence/make a convincing argument. Not that I think this is any way important: it's just a way to keep me amused until I get bored of it :)

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

But for those who are absolutely certain about this, it's up to them to provide the evidence/make a convincing argument.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's absolutely certain about this (or about anything for that matter).