A very good effort. However I must disagree with Paul Elliot's take on 'Black Queen containing the dubiuous use of thew word 'Nigger'. As we all should know 'Nigger Sugar' is actually an archaic word to describe raw cane sugar, thus its in keeping with the songs lyrics.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I was very depressed but not surprised about the Queen article in Uncut. It was litterally completely about decadence, parties, and drug use amongst Queen- not about music, concepts, behind the scenes facts about recording, etc.
This is how it is... NME, Q, whatever, the lifestyle of a musician is what appeals to the common reader, apparently. I suppose it appeals to journalists because thats the sort of life they *wished* they had. To me, it's just nonsense.
I agree. I was apalled at how tabloid the article was, and I mean BIG time tabloid. I have read alot of artist articles that included some tales of excess, I guess for those out there who want to read sensational trash, but this particular article on Queen in "Uncut" was nearly 100% slanted towards tales of hedonistic excess with a ton of errors to boot.
If I had never ever heard of Queen prior to reading this article, I would have learned absolutely nothing about who they were as music artists and their musical achievements and contributions.
I also was to be honest, surprised that Brian...of all people, did not have or post any problem with this negative tabloid trash on his website.
FYI too, Brian & all of the members of Queen (including Freddie), have had a now what is it,
3 decade long war with NME Magazine for publishing just this kind of trash....and Brian is very frank to this day about it on his website.
Uncut Magazine is not only owned and published by the SAME Publishing Company as NME Magazine, but Uncut Magazine uses MANY of NME's Writers--the same writers write for BOTH publications. So why on earth did Brian grant an interview to Uncut Magazine at all and then say nothing when this trash was written up in the article?
To make matters worse, when the advance promos came out for the Uncut Magazine Cover Story...it said nicely and quite misleadingly.."We Remember Freddie", then when I read the actual article in Uncut...it focused 100% on tales of debauchery,alot of all of the members of Queen, but mostly it stressed that of Freddie's. I know enough about that. Get a life. Leave it alone. I wanted to hear about what did make Queen and Freddie memorable and important in the world of music...
Queen's music, Freddie's music, his talent, his songwriting, his vision, his innovation with the likes of "Bohemian Rhapsody" and all of his music, his stratospheric showmanship as a live performer...HOW he..along with all of the members of Queen stole the show at Live Aid.
Queen's talent, Queen's vision, Queen's songwriting, innovation, and influence on other music artists, music, popular culture, etc.
I wanted to hear detailed stories of "the making of" certain songs, records. Great anecdotes about Queen's artistry and development as musicians over time, etc.
Not a word about any of this. Good Grief!
The Drown......
Unfortunately, that's what *most* people have been told about Queen in the past and is, sadly, what they are remembered for. That ridiculous quote from Francis Rossi about Freddie is just an example of the kind of think that a tabloid-based publication will print just to shift a few extra copies.
Another example of the lack of attention to detail is the following:
"(after the final Japanese date of 1982) nothing other than Under Pressure was ever played live again (or words to that effect)"
Clearly incorrect when we all know that Staying Power was played at least once in Europe in 1984.
The trick with magazine / newspaper articles is to read them and then think about what you *know" to be true already and then compare that against what you've just read. Anything that you read and you doubt, can pretty much be solved on a forum like this.
My copy of the Queen "special collector's edition" is now winging it's way back to the publishers for a refund because it doesn't do what it says on the cover and is, therefore, contravening the Trades Description Act.
Unfortunately, that's what *most* people have been told about Queen in the past and is, sadly, what they are remembered for. That ridiculous quote from Francis Rossi about Freddie is just an example of the kind of think that a tabloid-based publication will print just to shift a few extra copies.
Another example of the lack of attention to detail is the following:
"(after the final Japanese date of 1982) nothing other than Under Pressure was ever played live again (or words to that effect)"
Clearly incorrect when we all know that Staying Power was played at least once in Europe in 1984.
The trick with magazine / newspaper articles is to read them and then think about what you *know" to be true already and then compare that against what you've just read. Anything that you read and you doubt, can pretty much be solved on a forum like this.
My copy of the Queen "special collector's edition" is now winging it's way back to the publishers for a refund because it doesn't do what it says on the cover and is, therefore, contravening the Trades Description Act.
You and I would both love to see a collectors’ edition with a CD attached of rare bootlegs or DVDs, but I cannot see a time when any major bands’ record label would sanction such a freebie. Nice idea, though.
I think that suggestion typifies this site at the moment.
Unrealistic expectations & a desire to be "given" everything.
How long do you have to monitor the two sites for feedback before the boss sends you off to the next artist (presumably whichever of U2/REM hasn't already been done)
Unrealistic expectations & a desire to be "given" everything.
How long do you have to monitor the two sites for feedback before the boss sends you off to the next artist (presumably whichever of U2/REM hasn't already been done)
Sadly, the "easy" option for magazines like this is to just put out what they like, simply because people that are fans of a band will buy it, regardless of the content. I would imagine that if it were advertised as containing nothing new and plenty of errors, it would STILL shift the same numbers in terms of sales revenues. People will buy ANYTHING with the Queen name on it.
The publishers won't ever be taken to task over factual errors, because they either can't be bothered or don't have the resource (ie experts) to be able to answer the questions posed after the event - they just worry about the amount of cash the thing generates.
It's the same thing with QPL - they don't give a fuck what fans / people think about the way the back catalogue has been handled in the past. So long as the money keeps coming in, they won't ever justify what they do or don't to. They certainly will never give a straight answer to a straight question; does anyone know ANYONE that had had a response to a technical letter to QPL regarding the catalogue?
So, QMOJO
1 - how do you explain the *FACTUAL ERROR" regarding the statement that nothing other than Under Pressure was played from Hot Space after the end of the Jap. leg of the Hot Space tour?
2 - have you received correspondance from people regarding the innacuracies contained within the magazine and, if so, how do you plan to address them?
3 - going forward, how will you ensure that other "special collector's editions" will feature similar glaring mistakes?
The publishers won't ever be taken to task over factual errors, because they either can't be bothered or don't have the resource (ie experts) to be able to answer the questions posed after the event - they just worry about the amount of cash the thing generates.
It's the same thing with QPL - they don't give a fuck what fans / people think about the way the back catalogue has been handled in the past. So long as the money keeps coming in, they won't ever justify what they do or don't to. They certainly will never give a straight answer to a straight question; does anyone know ANYONE that had had a response to a technical letter to QPL regarding the catalogue?
So, QMOJO
1 - how do you explain the *FACTUAL ERROR" regarding the statement that nothing other than Under Pressure was played from Hot Space after the end of the Jap. leg of the Hot Space tour?
2 - have you received correspondance from people regarding the innacuracies contained within the magazine and, if so, how do you plan to address them?
3 - going forward, how will you ensure that other "special collector's editions" will feature similar glaring mistakes?
It's the same thing with QPL - they don't give a fuck what fans / people think about the way the back catalogue has been handled in the past. So long as the money keeps coming in, they won't ever justify what they do or don't to. They certainly will never give a straight answer to a straight question; does anyone know ANYONE that had had a response to a technical letter to QPL regarding the catalogue?
I raise my hand to this hell ya!
I've been telling you all that I have approached QPL and Hollywood Records in the USA about doing everything from a Queen Definitive Box Set, to a Queen New definitive Documentary, to getting Queen music licensed in various TV/film, to getting the Freddie Mercury 10 CD, 2 DVD 120 page book Solo Collection released in the USA....
(not the butchered 3 CD FM Solo Collection that is the only available version in the USA),
..to get this...getting/proposing a Special Exhibit honoring Queen in the USA at The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame & Museum in Cleveland, Ohio (which I also proposed to The Museum's Curator) that Queen are already inducted in, to timely coincide with both the Queen Breakthru North American Convention held in Cleveland August 2005, and striking while the iron is hot with the Queen/Paul Rodgers Tour,
But all I get is blown off, and unsubstantiated letters with statements like not a good time, not enough interest, etc.
I think that suggestion typifies this site at the moment.
Unrealistic expectations & a desire to be "given" everything.
How long do you have to monitor the two sites for feedback before the boss sends you off to the next artist (presumably whichever of U2/REM hasn't already been done)
Keep up! We've already done REM! :-)
I hang out here for pleasure. How did you think I knew about this site in the first place?
1 - how do you explain the *FACTUAL ERROR" regarding the statement that nothing other than Under Pressure was played from Hot Space after the end of the Jap. leg of the Hot Space tour?
It is just that: a factual error
2 - have you received correspondance from people regarding the innacuracies contained within the magazine and, if so, how do you plan to address them?
Only competition entries, I'm afraid,
3 - going forward, how will you ensure that other "special collector's editions" will feature similar glaring mistakes?[/QUOTE]
Our subs will be thrashed to within an inch of their lives.
One other mistake in the magazine that I see SO often these days is the day Freddie left us.
Has my memory faded or am I correct in my belief that the 24th Of November 1991 was a SUNDAY - NOT a Saturday as EVERYONE reports?
I mean - stuff "where were you when Live Aid was on" - "Where were you when Freddie died?".
I was waiting for the coach for my University trip to Amsterdam when some arrogant tit on the course ran up to me at 10pm and waved his radio in my face in utter delight that the world's greatest rock star had died (twat). Obviously I didn't believe him, but the papers next morning were full of it. That ruined my week away.
I just wish I had a photograph of the dawn sky over Dover as it was magnificent - it looked like the visuals on all the religeous films - Jesus dies and the sky just lights up with magnificent colours. At least I've got the memory.
Has my memory faded or am I correct in my belief that the 24th Of November 1991 was a SUNDAY - NOT a Saturday as EVERYONE reports?
I mean - stuff "where were you when Live Aid was on" - "Where were you when Freddie died?".
I was waiting for the coach for my University trip to Amsterdam when some arrogant tit on the course ran up to me at 10pm and waved his radio in my face in utter delight that the world's greatest rock star had died (twat). Obviously I didn't believe him, but the papers next morning were full of it. That ruined my week away.
I just wish I had a photograph of the dawn sky over Dover as it was magnificent - it looked like the visuals on all the religeous films - Jesus dies and the sky just lights up with magnificent colours. At least I've got the memory.
QMOJO,
Well, there you go - that's the definitive answer to the questions - no expansion on the theme or promise to "do better"?
What more could we have expected?
OK:
1 - SO, if it is "just" a factual error, why was it made? Who selects the people that compose material for the publication and how is their material fact-checked?
2 - How would you act upon correspondance from readers that take you to task?
3 - So you aren't going to do anything pro-actively to prevent people being hired that are capable of making such glaring mistakes?
Please, be as full and comprehensive in your responses as possible.
Well, there you go - that's the definitive answer to the questions - no expansion on the theme or promise to "do better"?
What more could we have expected?
OK:
1 - SO, if it is "just" a factual error, why was it made? Who selects the people that compose material for the publication and how is their material fact-checked?
2 - How would you act upon correspondance from readers that take you to task?
3 - So you aren't going to do anything pro-actively to prevent people being hired that are capable of making such glaring mistakes?
Please, be as full and comprehensive in your responses as possible.
Our writers and sub-editors are selected on their knowledge of the subject matter in question. But nobody - including even the folks here - are infallible. Mistakes still get made in all magazines and newspapers and, in fact, in all forms of media. Were I to receive any complaints about these errors (which I have not), I would address them in the only rational way possible: with a sincere apology. We always strive to keep high standards of accuracy in all our special editions and this has been borne out by the positive response we have had to our previous magazines and by the positive e-mails and comments we have received from people who have purchased the Queen special – many, I would hasten to add, who subscribe to this and other Queen websites.
Beyond that: there is no other action we can take. I feel that an apology and an admission of our mistake is sufficient. Yes, we got it wrong and it pains me that we did; we strive to produce the best magazine we can and our success is wholly reliant on the patronage of fans, such as yourself. We never lose sight of that. I don’t believe, though, that these errors destroy the worth or credibility of the whole magazine.
However, there is another issue here: that it is just a magazine and a magazine about a rock band at that. This is not life and death we are dealing with here. Please let’s have a bit of perspective.
You know, in a funny sort of way, I’ve enjoyed butting heads with you. I’ll miss this when I move on to the next thing…Anyone going to the Wembley show? Perhaps we can all meet in the bar! :-)
Beyond that: there is no other action we can take. I feel that an apology and an admission of our mistake is sufficient. Yes, we got it wrong and it pains me that we did; we strive to produce the best magazine we can and our success is wholly reliant on the patronage of fans, such as yourself. We never lose sight of that. I don’t believe, though, that these errors destroy the worth or credibility of the whole magazine.
However, there is another issue here: that it is just a magazine and a magazine about a rock band at that. This is not life and death we are dealing with here. Please let’s have a bit of perspective.
You know, in a funny sort of way, I’ve enjoyed butting heads with you. I’ll miss this when I move on to the next thing…Anyone going to the Wembley show? Perhaps we can all meet in the bar! :-)
That's exactly the kind of response I was looking for - thank you.
In an odd way, I was struck by the difference in quality between the special compiled on The Who (almost NO factual errors and a production of wonderful quality) and the one on Queen (lots of factual errors and poor production). I just couldn't believe that there was so vast a difference between the two from the same publisher.
But then again, two different bands and obviously two different sets of writers with better or worse factual knowledge of their subject than the other.
It's great that these specials happen, but they are only worth their weight if they are factually correct, otherwise, you may as well just trust what you read in The Sun or AN Other tabloid as being factual.
But......keep up the work that was done on The Who's special.
In an odd way, I was struck by the difference in quality between the special compiled on The Who (almost NO factual errors and a production of wonderful quality) and the one on Queen (lots of factual errors and poor production). I just couldn't believe that there was so vast a difference between the two from the same publisher.
But then again, two different bands and obviously two different sets of writers with better or worse factual knowledge of their subject than the other.
It's great that these specials happen, but they are only worth their weight if they are factually correct, otherwise, you may as well just trust what you read in The Sun or AN Other tabloid as being factual.
But......keep up the work that was done on The Who's special.
Ah, but did you spot the mistake(s) in the Who special?
LOL
LOL
I haven't read it a third time, but I will - just for you. My "speciality" is The Who, so...... I'll get back to you.
But, as stated somewhere before, I guess it is ONLY a magazine......
But, as stated somewhere before, I guess it is ONLY a magazine......