May - Descending Further Into The Abyss

That is a bit unfair because Freddie was a very shy guy and could not approach men so Paul Prenter alway's provided Mercury with men to take back at night and
Freddie must have trusted Paul's choice of men.
Sure i know it is reported Freddie had hundreds of lovers, but probably when his confidence had grown he could pick up his own men?

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

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

[QUOTE] [b]JS21 wrote:[/b]

@VocalHarmony

Can you please share the source where Freddie said ''It is time for change' ?
[/QUOTE]

Fake news to me as well :)[/QUOTE]

I'm working away from home, so couldn't get the info quickly, but here it is

Days of Our Lives DVD.

Freddie Quote: "Somtimes it's nice breaking away from a group that's been going for so long, meaning staying away"

Freddie Quote: "I love Queen but I don't want to spend the rest of my life living in a quartet"

Jim Beach Quote: "Mr Bad Guy was a disaster"

JS21 I'll give you a more detailed reply when time allows.

runner_70 stick your fake news accusations where the sun doesn't shine.[/QUOTE]

@Vocalharmony

Sorry. My reply went somewhere.

Freddie Quote: "Somtimes it's nice breaking away from a group that's been going for so long, meaning staying away"

This is something similar to what Brian said in 1983 as quoted by @Holly2003 in another thread

http://queenzone.com/forums/1556868/beware-who-owns-the-story.aspx

* After I wrote this I looked up an old newspaper article I have in a scrapbook. There's an interview with Brian in which he says : "Last November [presumably 1982] in Japan we decided not to see each other for a while. After 10 years with the same people you wonder if you can play with anyone else. So we erased all the bookings for 5 months after which we had meetings to see whether we could start again. Working with other musicians made me decide I couldn't survive in the outside world without Queen."

So this is something all of them thought about at different times Not just Freddie.

In Days of our lives, even Jim Beach is quoted as saying,

'Whenever the band came under pressure, there would be a walkout, separation, row'

Freddie Quote: "I love Queen but I don't want to spend the rest of my life living in a quartet"

This is from 1983 interview where Freddie talks about doing a solo album and how was already 37 years old and he wants to do something different as otherwise he will be too old and in a wheelchair.

Even from the beginning, Roger, Freddie all of them said, if their records don't sell, they will go do something else. It was something am sure, all of them thought/talked about, life beyond Queen at some point.

It is quite different from the way movie portrayed Freddie which is what the complaint is about.

Jim Beach Quote: "Mr Bad Guy was a disaster"

I never said MBG was successful

[QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]That is a bit unfair because Freddie was a very shy guy and could not approach men so Paul Prenter alway's provided Mercury with men to take back at night and Freddie must have trusted Paul's choice of men.
Sure i know it is reported Freddie had hundreds of lovers, but probably when his confidence had grown he could pick up his own men?[/QUOTE]
c'mon. really? it doesn't matter how shy/confident he was. as adults we are ALL responsible for our own decisions. the inference that Prenter was responsible for Freddie catching HIV
[QUOTE] [color=blue][b]ST17 wrote:[i]...and maybe Prenter set Freddie up knowing the guy was HIV?[/i][/b][/color] [/QUOTE]
is, well: ridiculous, insulting to our intelligence and defamatory - all in equal measure.

if you wish to discuss this seriously, please do so. but, please don't every try to claim that's Freddie's HIV, then AIDS, then death is anyone else's fault (even partially) - he is 100% responsible for what he did and with whom. it's ALL on him.
(if you drive your car without a seatbelt, and crash into another car - your injuries are YOUR fault)

trying to separate your hero from his human flaws/failings doesn't work - and you should withdraw from the notion that doing so is (somehow) possible or justifiable. you don't get the absolute musical genius without the huge character holes (in his case attention seeking promiscuity). had this been possible, he'd (likely) have never had the talent he did.

Well i disagree so you are trying to say you have to have huge character holes in order to be talented, well many artists are talented
and some have boring lives, so lets take for argument sake Olivia Newton John, she is talented but i don't recall her going to parties snorting cocaine do you?
Paul Prenter was hated by many in the Queen ranks and as i said before i would not trust that irish bum with my life.

[QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]Well i disagree so you are trying to say you have to have huge character holes in order to be talented, well many artists are talented
and some have boring lives, so lets take for argument sake Olivia Newton John, she is talented but i don't recall her going to parties snorting cocaine do you?
Paul Prenter was hated by many in the Queen ranks and as i said before [color=red][b]i would not trust that irish bum with my life.[/color][/b][/QUOTE]

first of all, i'd be very careful about using phrases like those ^ - highly offensive in every sense.

secondly, perhaps re-read what I said: I didn't say that talented people are full of flaws - the word i used was "genius". and, no matter how highly respected ONJ may be in films or music, she is not a genius.

[color=blue][i]"according to conventional wisdom the line between genius and madness is a very thin one. Now a study suggests the line may be even more blurred than previously thought. According to the research led by Adrianne John Galang they are more likely to display antisocial traits such as dishonesty and risk taking.
According to the results, which were published in Personality and Individual Differences journal, psycopathic boldness is integral to some creative personalities."[/color][/i]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/creative-geniuses-have-a-lot-in-common-with-psychopaths/

You are such a deep thinker and even you have gone of the subject that this thread was discussing lol

[QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]

You are such a deep thinker and even you have gone of the subject that this thread was discussing lol[/QUOTE]
and what about your use of the words "irish" and "bum" in the same sentence (in the way you did)...
you can't see how that might be offensive?

Sorry if i offended you but it was not aimed at you Brenski i just hate Paul Prenter like many Queen fans do.

I’m trying not to think of the other senses it might be offensive

Actually I think in My Fairy King Freddie was alluding to the fine (negative width? :-) ) line between genius and madness...

"My fairy king, he sees things that are not there for you and me".

Did you see that ludicrous display last night?

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

Too bad none of that is true.....[/QUOTE]

Because you were there or know people who were there?

[QUOTE] [b]JS21 wrote:[/b]

@Real Wizard:
We have to go by what was told by the Queen members in interviews and Magazines and nowhere any of them mentioned they broke up at any point.[/QUOTE]
Wait, so you think celebrities just divulge everything in interviews, and you get the full story?

Spoiler alert - interviews are for PR. They aren't autobiographies. You are putting way too much stock into them. They tell about 5% of the story at most.

Listen to any Queen interview from the 1970s - it's painful. They say so much while saying so little, all because they're trying to protect the process and their privacy.

The film gave them another medium to tell their story, and there were a couple bits in there that weren't previously told publicly. Just because they hadn't mentioned it in some interview doesn't mean it's not true.

McCartney tells new stories to this day. Does that mean they're not true because he hadn't told them by 2005? By 1993? Where is the cut-off point where an artist should have told their entire story?

Of course there isn't one.

But people have their knickers in a twist because they're experiencing cognitive dissonance in the form of new information conflicting with their cherished beliefs about their favourite musicians. It's both funny and sad to watch.

[QUOTE]Why would they want to break up after live aid after that enormous success? It does not make sense.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it was 1985.

[QUOTE]I don't agree with the ultimatum to Freddie after live aid either.[/QUOTE]
You weren't there, and thankfully opinions are irrelevant and do not change facts.

[QUOTE] [b]JS21 wrote:[/b]

Reg. Pete Brown incident, Freddie did throw stuff by his own account and told by David Wigg, John Reid. But I doubt if Freddie was that violent so as to throw stuff at someone and seriously injure them. Here is what probably might have happened. Freddie probably threw a mirror in the wall or somewhere which might have accidentally hit him slightly and caused an injury and he might have exaggerated it a bit for effect.
Anyway, who in their right mind would talk flippantly if they were smashed on their head by a huge mirror and also tell Freddie told him to pick up the pieces afterwards? Did he have a huge gash in his head after the incident? Was there any photos of him with injury or anyone else corroborating th[/QUOTE]

You can rationalize it all you want and create revisionist history by minimizing it as someone talking "flippantly" because you don't enjoy seeing your favourite singer as anything but a saint. But you can't change the facts, no matter how much you don't want them to be true.

The more you read books and talk to people who were around then, the more you realize most of the big rock stars were not very nice people a lot of the time.

Mercury was not an easy guy to work with by most accounts - he's up there with John Bonham and Ritchie Blackmore.

But these days Brian and Roger are still protecting their old friend by not divulging the stories that shed him in the most negative light. The movie was incredibly tame compared to some of the things they could've told.

Rock musicians have zero influence over a Hollywood script. The top cats went to the band members for biographical notes early in the process, and their involvement pretty well ends there - Hollywood calls the shots from then onward. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and the final decisions do not come down to two rock musicians who are not bankrolling the production.

And what's with the user name? JS21 is awfully close to ST17, and is a miraculously more articulate version of the latter while still holding the same fundamental views...

[QUOTE]PS: I enjoy your queenlive.ca site very much.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. 'Tis a labour of love.