Unfortunately the discussion did not appear to produce any evidence for the claim.
que.123 · Member since
There are a couple of nice colour photos from the Leeds concert on the link below, the seller is claiming Freddie is wearing a Leeds United scarf? The away strip at the time was all yellow and there were a lot of yellow Leeds United wool and silk scarfs around (I had a couple myself). The fashion at the time was to sometimes wear them tied around the wrist but I'm not sure that is one, maybe it is?
Freddie did sometimes wear the team colours e.g. the Argentina shirt in Buenos Aires or the Seibu Lions baseball cap in Tokorozawa. The yellow "scarf" is always an indication that the photo is from Leeds.
moonie · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]
As a Boro fan I would like to thank Leeds Utd for the unending comedy show that is dirty, dirty Leeds. Bit of a bogey team for us lately though :-([/QUOTE]
I'm also a Boro fan. Nice to know I'm not the only masochist on QZ..
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]que.123 wrote:[/b]
There are a couple of nice colour photos from the Leeds concert on the link below, the seller is claiming Freddie is wearing a Leeds United scarf? The away strip at the time was all yellow and there were a lot of yellow Leeds United wool and silk scarfs around (I had a couple myself). The fashion at the time was to sometimes wear them tied around the wrist but I'm not sure that is one, maybe it is?
Freddie did sometimes wear the team colours e.g. the Argentina shirt in Buenos Aires or the Seibu Lions baseball cap in Tokorozawa. The yellow "scarf" is always an indication that the photo is from Leeds.[/QUOTE]
Lovely pics ! But £425 for two amateur pics? That's crazy. At least he had the common decency not to watermark them.
It's definitely not a football scarf - it's just something Freddie had on his wrist.
Thanks for posting these links ! Someone else in the leedsforum thread said they have a bunch of pics from the show, but nothing seemed to come from that, either. A shame. But if I had a dime for every time I read about a supposed recording that never got out there, I'd be a rich man. Sometimes these stories are just that - stories. Years, drugs, wishful thinking, or any combination thereof tend to be what create many of these tales.
Costa86 · Member since
£425 is daylight robbery, no doubt.
But, the creator of a piece of art - be it a painting, a photo (it's debatable whether photography is art, but there are those who think it is), etc. - has the right to ask any price they want for it. I could paint something and ask for £100,000. If you really want it, then give me the money. If not, don't.
In the very early 70s, Picasso was being interviewed for a well-known magazine. As he was speaking to the interviewer, he was doodling on a piece of paper. When the interview was over, Picasso crumpled the paper and threw it in the bin. The interviewer asked, "can I have that?", to which Picasso replied, "sure, 10,000 dollars".
I know that two simple photos of Freddie are not a Picasso, but this is just to illustrate the point.
Doga · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
But, the creator of a piece of art - be it a painting, a photo (it's debatable whether photography is art, but there are those who think it is), etc..[/QUOTE]
Why a photography shouldn't be a piece of art?
There are, like words and drawing, rubbish pictures, functional pictures, and art pictures.
That brazilian guy with a pig in the head could help here...
brunogorski · Member since
/\ I'm here! Well, it's my job to tell people to buy my stuff and I call it art. So, i'm not the best person to give a decent opinion about this. HAHA Just kidding.
It's a hard subject, since there are photos and photos. There are documental stuff, just for the matter of some kind of record (criminal, for example). There are photos that are REALLY artistically produced, considering specific lenses, locations, time of day, the edition part (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc), and there are those automatic stuff done by some amateurs.
So, I'd say that we can consider that mainly there are 2 categories: Snapshots vs Photographies. Snapshots are like that Freddie stuff that que.123 posted, someone with a camera clicked and "Oh, okay, I've photographed Freddie". A (real) photography would be that iconic Wembley photo (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329571-19F434FE000005DC-345_634x417.jpg) or this one (https://queenphotos.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/freddie-mercury-at-wembley.jpg). It's really nicely composed, with a nice choice of lens, it's a pretty awesome photo, not just an automatic click.
Those are my 2 cents about it. =P
musicland munich · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
It's definitely not a football scarf - it's just something Freddie had on his wrist.
[/QUOTE]
(cough-like) Gay Hanky Code ;)
Costa86 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]brunogorski wrote:[/b]
/\ I'm here! Well, it's my job to tell people to buy my stuff and I call it art. So, i'm not the best person to give a decent opinion about this. HAHA Just kidding.
It's a hard subject, since there are photos and photos. There are documental stuff, just for the matter of some kind of record (criminal, for example). There are photos that are REALLY artistically produced, considering specific lenses, locations, time of day, the edition part (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc), and there are those automatic stuff done by some amateurs.
So, I'd say that we can consider that mainly there are 2 categories: Snapshots vs Photographies. Snapshots are like that Freddie stuff that que.123 posted, someone with a camera clicked and "Oh, okay, I've photographed Freddie". A (real) photography would be that iconic Wembley photo (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329571-19F434FE000005DC-345_634x417.jpg) or this one (https://queenphotos.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/freddie-mercury-at-wembley.jpg). It's really nicely composed, with a nice choice of lens, it's a pretty awesome photo, not just an automatic click.
