Brian May on BBC Radio 2, 2 Dec 2018

[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]

Brian as an artist has hardly created anything at all in the last 20 years in music.

A lot of his output in any medium , such as Queen in 3D, takes from what has already been created.

Brian must be fully aware of the timelines leading up to Live Aid. It’s not like it’s an off the top of the head recollection he made at short notice. Given the years that have gone in to deciding how to make the movie it would be uppermost in his mind.



[/QUOTE]

That is the saddest part. He is living in the past and completely dried out as a songwriter. What the heck happened? All he came up with in the last 20 years was stuff like "The Kissing Me Song"? I stand by it: The guy has completely lost the plot. Just read his ramblings in his soap box. I remeber the last postin I read there: He was complaining that leaves from trees where cleaned in front of his house. And that a neighbor is doing refurbishment.....

@bucsateflon: The point of going solo? That was obvious. Recording an album which was 100% Freddie Mercury. The album title, artwork and, of course, the music reflect that. What you see is what you get: pure Freddie Mercury. He has put his heart and soul into this album. It is full of emotion. And his voice is the main focus. So, in a way, it is a concept album, the concept being "Freddie Mercury".

it is sad to see that the lies is the movie are now spread around the world and believed by lots even some diehards. That is my main concern about this movie and it shows early

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

Maybe he simply doesn't care.
[/QUOTE]

And that's fine. Still, my point is that 'a lot of time has passed' is not a valid excuse in my opinion, especially when you can, again, spend a minute or so online and find out when they'd last played before Live Aid. Now, that doesn't invalidate him as a musician, as a person or as a PhD astrophysicist, stereo photographer, animal activist, etc., but it's there.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

Maybe his past doesn't mean as much to him as some people think it does/should.
[/QUOTE]

So why talk about a BIOPIC? One that covers events leading up to 1985? Last I checked, Live Aid was 33 years AGO - and 33 years ago is part of, wait for it ... wait for it ... the P-A-S-T uwu

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

Artists tend to live in the present, not in the past.
[/QUOTE]

Sure. That's why everything on their current setlist was penned in 2018. That's why he's promoting a film which only deals with the present. That's why he recently released a book which only covers his activities from the last sixty days or so. Sure!

PS: Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, anyway, but claiming they're not living in the past is preposterous. They're selectively living in the bits from the past they want to enhance (again, nothing wrong with that, just silly to deny that's what they're doing). In fact, ever since the late nineties (or 'Furia' at the latest), most of what Brian's done is living in the past. And why wouldn't he? His past has plenty of magnificent material, achievements, etc. His present has some as well, but mostly it's about reminiscing about the great songs he and the others wrote decades ago. Which again, is alright. But yeah, he's definitely living in the past. As are most artists around his age. As are most people, myself included (so no, this is not a criticism and this isn't coming from a place of alleged superiority).

My point is: Brian, a PhD with a long story of being thorough, could've spent a couple of minutes online to get his facts straight, or he could've said 'yeah, but...' He chose not to. That's not a crime and not something that automatically makes him a bad person. But yeah, he does live in the past.

I think the point about artists living in he present is valid.

Brian's focus is on the current line up and how they choose to present the music live. Very much living in the present. Yes the music maybe part of the band's history, but when they were still recording and releasing new music the setlist usually reflected the past more so than the current. They certainly didn't take the Pink Floyd route and play the current album live or even a version of the next album.

As for Brian's recollection of past tours, yes he could google what the band did, but I don't think he's that vein,min that way! And I still don't believe pin point accuracy of the past is as important as the bigger picture to him.

I also think that too many people are wrapped up in the film being about the band. It isn't directly and certainly not an historical ducument of that. What it is, is a film about Freddie and his involvement in the band and other key people in his life, pesented in an entertaining way.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

Why is The Works tour lowpoint?????
[/QUOTE]

-Sun City

-their show became stale in their eyes

-they were on the verge of breaking up, not least because of the tensions from Mercury having gotten a 3x bigger advance for his solo album than the band got for The Works
[/QUOTE]

Add to that:

- for the 1st time no touring in North America

- Freddie drunk on stage

- Freddie injuring himself during a show to the point an immediate help is needed

- ending a concert after 4 songs because one member of the band is unable to continue.

- using electronic drums on stage

- doing 5 shows in Japan and not performing Teo Torriatte

All of the above and more, as Mr Wizzard has pointed out.

Actually in fairness to someone in block C of the enorm dome in which ever city they were in, the European/UK Works shows were stunning, the production was great and the setlist drew every album.

The shows on the second leg weren't so good, and the fractured strained associations in the band were stretched to the limit.

I really don't think they were going to work together again, but Live Aid really did change everything

The point about not touring America. It was a major problem, Freddie didn't want to, the other three did. I was told that dates were lined up (not announced) but then pulled, Brian during a phone in on Amrican radio told a fan that they would be heading their way very soon!

Freddie's solo deal was worth a lot more than Queen were getting. I believe that the record company had the next Micheal Jackson signed up and ready to go. The album sold relatively well in some counties, but didn't met its forecast targets and Frddie was dropped

Parlaphone/EMI didn't buy Frddie out of the deal. What they did was buy back the rights to the songs, but the songs were worth a lot less than Freddie was paid in the initial deal.

[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]

It was supposed to do better than Queen, or else there was no point to go solo...[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s totally fair to say. I’m sure a big part of trying a solo endeavor was to have total creative control and to work with other musicians.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

I believe that the record company had the next Micheal Jackson signed up and ready to go. The album sold relatively well in some counties, but didn't met its forecast targets and Freddie was dropped.

Parlophone/EMI didn't buy Freddie out of the deal. What they did was buy back the rights to the songs, but the songs were worth a lot less than Freddie was paid in the initial deal.[/QUOTE]

Have you got any source for this? It contradicts everything I have read (and heard) about it. When was Freddie dropped according to your information?

[QUOTE] [b]RobbyBloodshed wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]

It was supposed to do better than Queen, or else there was no point to go solo...[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s totally fair to say. I’m sure a big part of trying a solo endeavor was to have total creative control and to work with other musicians.[/QUOTE]

Yep. People are talking about Fred as if Roger and Brian's solo releases never happened.

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

I believe that the record company had the next Micheal Jackson signed up and ready to go. The album sold relatively well in some counties, but didn't met its forecast targets and Freddie was dropped.

Parlophone/EMI didn't buy Freddie out of the deal. What they did was buy back the rights to the songs, but the songs were worth a lot less than Freddie was paid in the initial deal.[/QUOTE]

Have you got any source for this? It contradicts everything I have read (and heard) about it. When was Freddie dropped according to your information?[/QUOTE]
Just ignore her and her clueless drivel as she has no clue about Queen.

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

German Album Charts:
1985 Mr. Bad Guy - Peak 11 / 21 Weeks

German Single Charts:
1985 I Was Born To Love You - Peak 17 / 13 Weeks[/QUOTE]

It bombed in the UK, and it bombed in the US. German charts are irrelevant.

The majority of the album sales were advance sales on his name alone, not the quality of the product.

The label dropped him. That should say it all.

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

Concerning the Works Tour: Roger himself has stated it as one of his favourite tours. [/QUOTE]

You're right, he did say that. But perhaps he was just referring to the European dates in 1984. Things went south after that. He's also said this was the tour where their show became stale.

Sun City happened, and they were blacklisted by the UN. And they realized they'd lost America. There's not a chance that anyone in the band looks back on this period fondly.

I have no idea why you guys are so aghast by history. Bands fall apart, and history can be messy. It's normal.

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

Out of the blue, everybody slams Paul Prenter, as he is needed as the big villain in the movie. And Freddie crawling back to Queen "with his tail between his legs" (what a ridiculous phrase by Jim Beach!) after Mr. Bad Guy. Yeah, that was very clever plot hatching. Historical revisionism on two levels (documentary and movie).[/QUOTE]
It's not out of the blue. Anyone who worked for the band in the 80s will tell you that Prenter was the worst thing that ever happened to them.

As I've stated in another thread - the fact that a story hasn't been previously told doesn't mean it's not true. Were the new stories told in the Days Of Our Lives documentary in 2011 not true because they hadn't been told in 2010 or earlier? McCartney tells new stories about his past to this day. Are those all untrue too because Beatles fans didn't already know about them?

You don't have to take my word for it, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, just know that there is far more to any band's story than superfans know about. Books and documentaries never tell the whole story.

[QUOTE]I think it is every Freddie Mercury fan's duty to openly speak out, as the movie is damaging his legacy, imprinting a totally false (and negative!) image of him into people's minds.
[/QUOTE]
No - his legacy is well intact. It's just a few hundred people on internet forums who are complaining. The only thing this film is ultimately doing is exposing more people to Queen's music. People walk out of the theatre thinking Live Aid was amazing, not about his difficult period.

I guess you guys missed my post about Mercury smashing a mirror over his assistant's head, and the fact that there is only one brief reference to cocaine in the film. The film was far too lenient compared to what it could have been. I can only imagine what you guys would be saying about the portrayal of those things - and they actually happened.

Is there any evidence that Queen broke up the band for three years?

Is there any evidence that Freddie had to beg to get back in the band, and was dismissed from the room while the rest of the band decided his fate?