GonnaUseMyPrisoners: "There's obviously a history between Greg & John that most of us will never know..."
Mr Scully: "There's an obvious antipathy between John and Greg..."
Thanks for the support all. (That was a genuine "thank-you" and not a sarcasm!). The truth is, from this side, I have no problems with Greg. He is the official archivist who works for Queen Productions, and as such has to tow a party-line.
He is in a position to know much more about Queen releases than I do, and I concede to his superior knowledge in this area. I honestly have no issues here.
But on the other-hand, I have no such restriction, and I have a freedom to say what I believe to be true, without the sanctions of the Queen machine. This kind of makes me a loose cannon. It does not make what I say inaccurate, but it is said without the sanction of official permission.
In the end, that "position" is bound to cause me some grief. However, at the end of the day, I find it is a price worth paying.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuracies
An understatement that is. I submitted over 200 corrections to him for the revised book. Let's see how many of them make the final cut.
Sir GH, I do hope that you remembered to tell him that the support band for the gig at Edinburgh Ingliston 1982 was infact the band Heart and not, as he stated in his book, Teardrop Explodes. I know because I was actually there, as apparently was Fatty.
It`s my turn to put my two cents here:
It`s not a secret that I don`t like either John or Greg, and I think people who know me are aware of that.
Having said so, I`m not the kind of guy who`d start to say now things against them, because it`d be completely unfair.
John had a good point in saying that others can be in a similar position as he is but don`t share that with anyone. And nobody`s forcing him to post here what he has said before about unreleased tracks etc. So that says a lot about him (positively).
About Greg, I`ve never read the book and I don`t know about rare concerts or stuff like that, but I think it`s also unfair to say that his book is full of mistakes. I`d actually be very surprised if over 20, or even 10 percent, is catually wrong. And even in that case, that book was (correct me if I`m wrong) the "Mamma" of many modern Queen "scholar researches". It`s the same as Beatles: if you check their records there are flat notes here and there, sometimes piano played a chord different that it was supposed to, sometimes you hear some noises.... but thanks to them there`s a lot of the rest (because it`s not all anyway).
It`s not a secret that I don`t like either John or Greg, and I think people who know me are aware of that.
Having said so, I`m not the kind of guy who`d start to say now things against them, because it`d be completely unfair.
John had a good point in saying that others can be in a similar position as he is but don`t share that with anyone. And nobody`s forcing him to post here what he has said before about unreleased tracks etc. So that says a lot about him (positively).
About Greg, I`ve never read the book and I don`t know about rare concerts or stuff like that, but I think it`s also unfair to say that his book is full of mistakes. I`d actually be very surprised if over 20, or even 10 percent, is catually wrong. And even in that case, that book was (correct me if I`m wrong) the "Mamma" of many modern Queen "scholar researches". It`s the same as Beatles: if you check their records there are flat notes here and there, sometimes piano played a chord different that it was supposed to, sometimes you hear some noises.... but thanks to them there`s a lot of the rest (because it`s not all anyway).
from i've read in this topic greg books is a real son of a bitch.
The initial response that John gave to me can indeed be read in two ways. My interpretation of it was sent back to Greg (along with the URL to the topic)to ask what he made of the comments.
Ok, so Greg got a bit angry, it happens, we all do it and press 'send' when maybe we should switch off. I admit to being quite angry at JSS's rather superior tones in his initial reply myself.
I can't help but think that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye though, and this was perhaps just was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
So anyway, the tracks exist, but no we can't have them...that's a bloody shame. ;-(
Ok, so Greg got a bit angry, it happens, we all do it and press 'send' when maybe we should switch off. I admit to being quite angry at JSS's rather superior tones in his initial reply myself.
I can't help but think that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye though, and this was perhaps just was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
So anyway, the tracks exist, but no we can't have them...that's a bloody shame. ;-(
Sir GH, I do hope that you remembered to tell him that the support band for the gig at Edinburgh Ingliston 1982 was infact the band Heart and not, as he stated in his book, Teardrop Explodes. I know because I was actually there, as apparently was Fatty.
Unfortunately, support bands are not my area of expertise.
Still waiting for a answer to my question...(who exactly IS Greg Brooks...DETAILS PLEASE....soemthing beyond the usual "Queen Archeivist" line)
From what i gather reading this so far, he is NOT very popular with the Fans....
Is this correct?
From what i gather reading this so far, he is NOT very popular with the Fans....
Is this correct?
Queen Live: A Concert Documentary
Freddie Mercury's death signalled the end of one of the most popular live bands ever. Queen attracted thousands of fans to their shows and this book, a complete run down of every Queen concert performed anywhere in the world, is the perfect keepsake for anyone who's ever been to a Queen show. Opening with their earliest college concerts in 1970 and running right up to the extraordinary Freddie Mercury Memorial Concert at Wembley Stadium in 1993, 'Queen Live: A Concert Documentary' is the most ambitious - and comprehensive book ever published on the group. Author Greg Brooks is well known to Queen fans and collectors and has contributed articles on the band to Record Collector magazine.
Freddie Mercury's death signalled the end of one of the most popular live bands ever. Queen attracted thousands of fans to their shows and this book, a complete run down of every Queen concert performed anywhere in the world, is the perfect keepsake for anyone who's ever been to a Queen show. Opening with their earliest college concerts in 1970 and running right up to the extraordinary Freddie Mercury Memorial Concert at Wembley Stadium in 1993, 'Queen Live: A Concert Documentary' is the most ambitious - and comprehensive book ever published on the group. Author Greg Brooks is well known to Queen fans and collectors and has contributed articles on the band to Record Collector magazine.
Let's get some things straight - which a few of you anonymous people have got out of proportion.
1. My reply to the comments made by John Stuart might have been 'strong'. I speak my mind, call it how i see it. I never set out just to be malicious for the sake of it. I responded with what i thought and still think was an appropriate reply. It's tough if people don't like what i come back with - they should have thought of that before piping off with inaccuracies. that's fair enough - surely.
2. My take was that john was ONLY making things unnecessarily muddy and unclear, and being provocative when factual clarity was needed - as his want from time to time. His comment about we (or me) just saying "it doesn't exist" as a atandard reply is badly wrong. I never insult Queen fans by saying that, if i know otherwise, because i know i would be found out. i try to answer honestly. Those of you in Holland this last weekend will know i answered all questions as best i could - never with "it doesn't exist" - unless i know 100 percent that something does not exist.
3. There is no great history with john and i, EXCEPT that, to be candid (since you want me to) John has a way of phrasing things which get up peoples' noses. There always SEEMS to be an agenda to his words - another meaning below the surface. John suggests things which he knows will or can be taken in other ways, but still rants on regardless. i genuinely believe he must like the adverse attention his (sometimes) inaccurate guessing and annoying conjecture will inspire. i can't see another reason why he would say what he says otherwise.
4. Before the days when John started saying 'aggravating' things, and MISquoting me, and others, i found him to be a nice guy - very knowledgable and on top of things. BUT he was always economical with the facts and always gave me an uneasy feeling - as well as others too (who share this view). He said SOME things, left out other relevant things. You know this is true John because you actually admitted it to me. You know better than anyone that you only speak SOME of the facts (those that suit you best) and RARELY or NEVER offer all the relavent facts. This is why some people are suspicious of you, because they, and me, pick up on the fact that you are deliberately keeping relevant info back, knowing what the result would be.
this happenened twice with you and me in 2000, when you told me only half the story - remember????
5. When i said John (and others like him) should keep quiet rather than spreading misinformation, guesswork and his (unusual) take on things, i meant it. I stand by it. I think people should say things they know to be the case or else shut up. OR say..."I am guessing here, but i THINK Greg says 'it does not exist' because such and such..." THEN WE'LL ALL KNOW WHAT IS JOHN STUART FACT, AND WHAT IS JOHN STUART GUESSING. And then i won't get the hump because AGAIN John is getting up my nose saying things which don't need saying. It's that simple.
6. WHY ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE allowed/permitted to write their comments anonymously??????
if someone has an opinion, something to say, why can't they say, like me, and John Stuart do (good for you John. i respect you for that) THIS IS GREG BROOKS SAYING xxxxxxxxx"
Someone on here wrote.....
'As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuracies'
Well, OK, thats a fair opinion, but who are you???? Tell us all who you are. Don't hide. Come out and say who you are, and express yourself openly. Have the courage of your convictions. ALL OF YOU.
It seems really feeble and girlie to hold such convictions and strong opinions (which is great) but NOT be prepared to put your name and reputation to them (which is cowardly and shallow and babyish).
Someone here... fd, or anyone, tell me why you do this.
1. My reply to the comments made by John Stuart might have been 'strong'. I speak my mind, call it how i see it. I never set out just to be malicious for the sake of it. I responded with what i thought and still think was an appropriate reply. It's tough if people don't like what i come back with - they should have thought of that before piping off with inaccuracies. that's fair enough - surely.
2. My take was that john was ONLY making things unnecessarily muddy and unclear, and being provocative when factual clarity was needed - as his want from time to time. His comment about we (or me) just saying "it doesn't exist" as a atandard reply is badly wrong. I never insult Queen fans by saying that, if i know otherwise, because i know i would be found out. i try to answer honestly. Those of you in Holland this last weekend will know i answered all questions as best i could - never with "it doesn't exist" - unless i know 100 percent that something does not exist.
3. There is no great history with john and i, EXCEPT that, to be candid (since you want me to) John has a way of phrasing things which get up peoples' noses. There always SEEMS to be an agenda to his words - another meaning below the surface. John suggests things which he knows will or can be taken in other ways, but still rants on regardless. i genuinely believe he must like the adverse attention his (sometimes) inaccurate guessing and annoying conjecture will inspire. i can't see another reason why he would say what he says otherwise.
4. Before the days when John started saying 'aggravating' things, and MISquoting me, and others, i found him to be a nice guy - very knowledgable and on top of things. BUT he was always economical with the facts and always gave me an uneasy feeling - as well as others too (who share this view). He said SOME things, left out other relevant things. You know this is true John because you actually admitted it to me. You know better than anyone that you only speak SOME of the facts (those that suit you best) and RARELY or NEVER offer all the relavent facts. This is why some people are suspicious of you, because they, and me, pick up on the fact that you are deliberately keeping relevant info back, knowing what the result would be.
this happenened twice with you and me in 2000, when you told me only half the story - remember????
5. When i said John (and others like him) should keep quiet rather than spreading misinformation, guesswork and his (unusual) take on things, i meant it. I stand by it. I think people should say things they know to be the case or else shut up. OR say..."I am guessing here, but i THINK Greg says 'it does not exist' because such and such..." THEN WE'LL ALL KNOW WHAT IS JOHN STUART FACT, AND WHAT IS JOHN STUART GUESSING. And then i won't get the hump because AGAIN John is getting up my nose saying things which don't need saying. It's that simple.
6. WHY ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE allowed/permitted to write their comments anonymously??????
if someone has an opinion, something to say, why can't they say, like me, and John Stuart do (good for you John. i respect you for that) THIS IS GREG BROOKS SAYING xxxxxxxxx"
Someone on here wrote.....
'As for Greg whatsisname, here's hoping that he can do a better job with the proposed updating of his "Queen Live - A Concert Documentary". A book full of inaccuracies'
Well, OK, thats a fair opinion, but who are you???? Tell us all who you are. Don't hide. Come out and say who you are, and express yourself openly. Have the courage of your convictions. ALL OF YOU.
It seems really feeble and girlie to hold such convictions and strong opinions (which is great) but NOT be prepared to put your name and reputation to them (which is cowardly and shallow and babyish).
Someone here... fd, or anyone, tell me why you do this.
It seems really feeble and girlie
And i refuse to speak with anyone not man enough to tell me who he is.
You know, I was really interested by a couple of your points, that is until you started using this gendered language and associating negative traits with feminine qualities. Seems awfully chauvinistic and pigheaded to assume that people that use an alias on a public notice board are womanly and somehow inferior than you.
But gender bias aside, we use an alias to provide some degree of protection against the insane bumpties that post on QZ from time to time (ie Ming, a former QOL employee himself). Probably half the users in this thread I know their real names and where they live, but that came only after I spent time here and got to know them. After all, we've traded back and forth and developed a level of trust. To assume that Greg Brooks, or any other person in the world with a dear love of "Freddie," can just pop in and chat "mano y mano" is a bit much.
Now, if Greg Brooks, Queen Productions, or some reputable collector would like to start a private noticeboard, then I am sure you would no longer see aliases. But until then, you'll have to put up with the realities of the internet, however "girlie" they may be.
Kinda see Greg's point here, but forums typically encourage the use of nicknames for anonymity and protection of people's privacy.
After all, if there is a complete nutter on a forum, lack of anonymity could lead that person to do some harm. Generally, it's not going to be a problem, but you never know.
Leave the forum for what it was intended, and take these kind of "discussions" offline if the anonymity is to be removed.
While I have found this thread interesting, it's not really appropriate for this war of words to happen here really (although if it didn't, would we be any the wiser about the truth?).
That's my take on it anyway.
After all, if there is a complete nutter on a forum, lack of anonymity could lead that person to do some harm. Generally, it's not going to be a problem, but you never know.
Leave the forum for what it was intended, and take these kind of "discussions" offline if the anonymity is to be removed.
While I have found this thread interesting, it's not really appropriate for this war of words to happen here really (although if it didn't, would we be any the wiser about the truth?).
That's my take on it anyway.
My God... never witnessed such a thing.
Hello mr Brooks, you already know my name because I (have tried to) collaborate to the MK dvd project.
The reason for which the people don't widely screen their names is that it's not safe doing it on the net and I won't change this sort of "netiquette" just because you call us fans "coward"; which is, I have to tell you that, very unfair. You apologized for the offences towards Mr. Stuart and now you insulted the users on this board. We spoke, I told you my full name in past, that should be sufficient to read my post.
I think you took this matter far too hard and I think it's been a mistake bringing it on the net, on a public board.
People did't like Queen Production and yourself much before everything happened and this quarrel won't bring any advantage to you.
In the specific, Mr Stuart just said what he knew about the live recordings from the musical "Time", talking of things many people didn't know of.
Queen fans are dying to get the rarities boxes, or at least some infos about their beloved band!! And neither you or QP provided them.
We are very grateful to people like John Stuart for what he shared with us common fans/common collectors; and i'm speaking in term of knowledges and in term of recordings (bbc sessions, ibex concert... those should remind you something).
Besides what I said... I don't want to join the quarrel, I will leave it to you and Mr. Stuart, in the hope you can keep it as more private as possible.
Queen world already got so many low points lately, we don't need any others, please...
Hello mr Brooks, you already know my name because I (have tried to) collaborate to the MK dvd project.
The reason for which the people don't widely screen their names is that it's not safe doing it on the net and I won't change this sort of "netiquette" just because you call us fans "coward"; which is, I have to tell you that, very unfair. You apologized for the offences towards Mr. Stuart and now you insulted the users on this board. We spoke, I told you my full name in past, that should be sufficient to read my post.
I think you took this matter far too hard and I think it's been a mistake bringing it on the net, on a public board.
People did't like Queen Production and yourself much before everything happened and this quarrel won't bring any advantage to you.
In the specific, Mr Stuart just said what he knew about the live recordings from the musical "Time", talking of things many people didn't know of.
Queen fans are dying to get the rarities boxes, or at least some infos about their beloved band!! And neither you or QP provided them.
We are very grateful to people like John Stuart for what he shared with us common fans/common collectors; and i'm speaking in term of knowledges and in term of recordings (bbc sessions, ibex concert... those should remind you something).
Besides what I said... I don't want to join the quarrel, I will leave it to you and Mr. Stuart, in the hope you can keep it as more private as possible.
Queen world already got so many low points lately, we don't need any others, please...
It seems really feeble and girlie
And i refuse to speak with anyone not man enough to tell me who he is.
You know, I was really interested by a couple of your points, that is until you started using this gendered language and associating negative traits with feminine qualities. Seems awfully chauvinistic and pigheaded to assume that people that use an alias on a public notice board are womanly and somehow inferior than you.
But gender bias aside, we use an alias to provide some degree of protection against the insane bumpties that post on QZ from time to time (ie Ming, a former QOL employee himself). Probably half the users in this thread I know their real names and where they live, but that came only after I spent time here and got to know them. After all, we've traded back and forth and developed a level of trust. To assume that Greg Brooks, or any other person in the world with a dear love of "Freddie," can just pop in and chat "mano y mano" is a bit much.
Now, if Greg Brooks, Queen Productions, or some reputable collector would like to start a private noticeboard, then I am sure you would no longer see aliases. But until then, you'll have to put up with the realities of the internet, however "girlie" they may be.
I agree with Zeni[/mindless follower]
Really though, was it just me or did GB just show symptoms of MadTheSwine/Greatkingrat69. I felt the same kind of 'love' in the air when reading.