play.com are selling it for £5.99
www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=pri&page=title&r=BOOK&title=637230
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I Wonder how much of this £5.99 will go to GB and how much deserves to go to Mr. S?
What is pathetic is the fact that he told Bob (Sir GH) that there is no budget. Who's gonna get the money than? Greg I guess... So he wants a fan to do the editing and than... get the royalties. Do I understand it right? Unless the money goes for the charity- I find it PATHETIC!!!
I do corporate work for a living. A lot of my clients always use the "there's no budget" line, meaning do it as good as you can for as cheaply as possible. Then again, my clients haven't generated one to billion dollars in revenue over their career. I find Greg's statement about the budget to be as embarassing as the errors in the book. How did QP get hooked up with people like the Torpedo Twins and Greg Brooks anyway? I love reading stuff on this site from informed people, and sure some of the great contributors like Mr. Scully, Sebastian, Adam Baboolal, Sir GH and of course John Stuart would do an amazing job given Greg's resources. What a shame.
How did QP get hooked up with people like the Torpedo Twins and Greg Brooks anyway?
This is something I'm asking myself so often...
Rare Live, Queen Live by Greg- the same story, isn't it? I remember Greg writing in first edition of his book about Rare Live, criticising it... Ironic, his publication almost reaches its standard...
Honestly, Fenderek, I think that Queen's enthusiasm (as documented in The Magic Years, with Roy Thomas Baker discussing how they always pulled together for the good of the band) waned in the 80s, and they went from a great album band to a singles band that appeared to be more interested in charting and selling shitloads of records than producing quality goods. I thought that through the Elektra years, Queen's attention to details and doing things properly for artwork to promotion and everything else was second to none. Then they got shoddy. I couldn't wait to hear the Hollywood CD releases in '91. ANATO and NOTW were amongst the first releases. My all time fave Queen song is probably 'It's Late.' I popped the CD in (my first CD's ever), went straight to 'It's Late", and found the first chord missing. I'm not being petty, that is inexcusable, and it flows straight back to QP. The errors on Hollywood's first releases are well documented, and don't need rehashing. However, there is ultimate responsibility for letting inferior product on the market, and that's not the call of a record company, it's QP, and they should be embaraased by some of their business decisions in the past 20 years.
> However, there is ultimate responsibility for letting inferior product on the market, and that's not the call of a record company, it's QP, and they should be embaraased by some of their business decisions in the past 20 years.
At the end of the day, it's a quality control issue. Who is responsible for fact checking material? When a re-release is planned, who is responsible for FINALLY allowing the finished masters out into the shops - does anyone (for example the Hollywood series) bother to sit down for a couple of days and LISTEN to everything? Do Brian, Roger & John get to hear anything before it hits the shelves as they would have done in creating new music?
Clearly that didn't happen and it didn't happen with The Magic Years or Champions Of The World or Queen Rocks.
GB is a part (and cause in part) of the malaise that exists within the camp. Queen fans will buy pretty much anything with the Queen name on it - from badges and t-shirts to incredibly expensive wall cabinets with the CDs in that you already have in your jewel cases. because of that, they believe that they buyer pretty much exercises no controls over their spending and the organisation believes that theycan make a buck or two because of that. As time goes on, they become SO relaxed about it that quality control goes out of the window.
What I fear is that any 30th Aniversary release of an expanded ANATO is going to feature EXACTLY the same issues described above an dwill untimately disappoint. You'd hope that "everything possible" is being done to ensure that this is a landmark release and of the highest quality. Somehow, I believe that it's gone past the point where "the organisation" actually gives a shit.
At the end of the day, it's a quality control issue. Who is responsible for fact checking material? When a re-release is planned, who is responsible for FINALLY allowing the finished masters out into the shops - does anyone (for example the Hollywood series) bother to sit down for a couple of days and LISTEN to everything? Do Brian, Roger & John get to hear anything before it hits the shelves as they would have done in creating new music?
Clearly that didn't happen and it didn't happen with The Magic Years or Champions Of The World or Queen Rocks.
GB is a part (and cause in part) of the malaise that exists within the camp. Queen fans will buy pretty much anything with the Queen name on it - from badges and t-shirts to incredibly expensive wall cabinets with the CDs in that you already have in your jewel cases. because of that, they believe that they buyer pretty much exercises no controls over their spending and the organisation believes that theycan make a buck or two because of that. As time goes on, they become SO relaxed about it that quality control goes out of the window.
What I fear is that any 30th Aniversary release of an expanded ANATO is going to feature EXACTLY the same issues described above an dwill untimately disappoint. You'd hope that "everything possible" is being done to ensure that this is a landmark release and of the highest quality. Somehow, I believe that it's gone past the point where "the organisation" actually gives a shit.
Somehow, I believe that it's gone past the point where "the organisation" actually gives a shit.
You can't imagine how much I would love to believe it's not true and so badly would love to be prove wrong...? Somehow don't think this will happen...
so, Greg has decided for whatever reason to omit it from the setlist?
Pretty much, yeah. There are dozens of (perhaps over a hundred) cases in his books of making up setlists, because nobody can completely prove him wrong. He is in quite a convenient position.
RIP Van Winkle:
I haven't read the entire new book yet. In fact, I'm only as far as 1976, and I'm already pretty disgusted with what I've read. Still there are dozens of errors. I can't believe he still claims KYA was played on 9-13-73, and that they didn't perform In The Lap Of The Gods (Revisited) in Manchester 75. It makes you wonder if he has access to any soundboards from this tour, if they exist at all, or if he didn't bother to change this entry for reason X. Either way, what kind of Queen live expert doesn't understand the basic fact that Queen closed the set with ITLOTG...R until they had something better - We Are The Champions? What a disgrace to the intellect of dedicated Queen fans.
John SS:
Amazing post, and thanks so much for your kind words for me, yet again. No need to reiterate anything here. Many of your comments completely hit home with me. You also made many great and necessary points about Greg and QP, and I'm glad you could be so open about it all.
Okay everybody, here's my long term plan:
To create a piece of work completely devoted to the works (or lack there of) of Greg Brooks. I will point out those errors which were corrected in his new book, and those which were not corrected. I will be very careful in separating *facts* from *things I'd like to be facts*, possibilities, and utter fallacies. I will be sure to offer much praise where it is necessary, but mark my words, I will not fall short in the area of criticism.
John: I would like to quote some of the things you said in this topic (perhaps as part of a preface, or similar), and I would appreciate your expertise in places where I may not be able to prove certain things on my own.
Martin: I would like to collaborate with you on this, and post my final product on your site. Your site receives over 100x more traffic than mine, so naturally your site would be the place where the most people would be able to see this. Perhaps we could add comments to your individual concert listings that we'd both agree on, and welcome input from others in doing this.
Both of you, please let me know what you think of these ideas.
I want the wide world of Queen fans to know that there are hard-working amateurs who have a passion for the band's work, and are willing to put forth much more effort than those closely affiliated with the band. Queen fans deserve a resource where they can find EVERYTHING at once, full of facts, and only facts. Queenconcerts.com is the closest thing we have to that, and here's possibly the next idea to make it even better. Without this sounding like a hate campaign, I think this is starting to sound like a project that would inevitably render the work of Greg Brooks obsolete. Perhaps it may be the piece of work that will prompt Greg to once and for all open his mouth and give us some real information about what truly lies inside the Queen archives.
What does everyone else think?
Details and plans would have to be discussed first. I don't want anything like "Greg's book is shit, this is a replacement". But I want my site the become the ultimate source about Queen concerts (if it hasn't become already). So any corrections or additions are always welcome. If my site becomes (or already is) a better source than Greg's book, it's nice. But it's not my primary goal. I don't want any competition, I just want to provide the most accurate info.
And let's face it, my database currently IS the most accurate Queen concertography that exists. If it included info about what Freddie said at the concerts (that's the only thing Greg's book includes and my site doesn't), then Greg's book would become useless.
And let's face it, my database currently IS the most accurate Queen concertography that exists. If it included info about what Freddie said at the concerts (that's the only thing Greg's book includes and my site doesn't), then Greg's book would become useless.
Details and plans would have to be discussed first. I don't want anything like "Queen Live is shit, this is a replacement". But I want my site the become the ultimate source about Queen concerts (if it hasn't become already). So any corrections or additions are always welcome. If my site becomes (or already is) a better source than Greg's book, it's nice. But it's not my primary goal. I don't want any competition, I just want to provide the most accurate info.
I understand that, but look at it this way: Greg has used a lot of our work for something which he alone is currently profiting from. If he can go public with a new edition of a book which is highly composed of our work, then why can't we go public doing a similar thing, but better? All we would need to do is credit his work appropriately, just as he did for us.
Yes, his book is copyrighted, but in all logic, he cannot copyright all of that information to be purely his own. The fact that Queen performed at the Hammersmith Odeon in London on 12-24-75 is not the intellectual property of one Greg Brooks. So there exists this fine line between what is "his" information and what is "everybody's" information.
In the preface, he made it clear that without three sources claiming something to be true, it would not be added to the book. Yet there are thirty people posting at this forum alone who would debate several things said in his book. Greg did not speak with me specifically about any of my proposed changes, many of which could have also been suggested by others. Now I wonder, did he treat others this way as well? It makes me wonder how much he was willing to be proven wrong by "amateurs". He just said "thank you", and I didn't hear from him until he informed me that the book was done. I tried contacting him a few times about such matters, but each time his email address appeared to be down. I am suspicious of this. But regardless, I missed out on those intermediate steps, and now I want to find another way to take those steps, with other people.
Updates need to be made, and I want them to be made as public as possible. I feel completely ripped off by this man. I do not want Greg to be widely known as the ultimate Queen expert, simply because his books make it clear to certain amateurs like you and I that he is not. Just because he has access to a few more recordings than we do does not make him the Queen expert of Queen experts. Read between the lines, my friend. I think this is huge.
And let's face it, my database currently IS the most accurate Queen concertography that exists. If it included info about what Freddie said at the concerts (that's the only thing Greg's book includes and my site doesn't), then Greg's book would become useless.
Unfortunately, much of these comments are examples of copyrighted material, as they are sourced from soundboard recordings belonging to Queen. There's no going around that, until any of those concerts are officially released on cd or DVD, which of course will probably not happen. But again, if he can cite some Freddie comments from bootlegs, then why can't we? Furthermore, how could he prove that we don't have audience recordings of those shows he updated as such? Exactly, he can't.
Martin, let me know what you think after reading all this.
Is there anyone else here who is serious along with me?
www.QueenConcerts.com is really ultimate site. But with one minus. It is impossible to find exact setlist with correct order of songs for any unusual concert with rare tracks or something.
CMI - setlists are always a problem. We can either (1.) include setlists from our recordings (may be incomplete) or (2.) guess the setlists (and that's quite a big mistake that Greg did in his first edition of Queen Live).
GH - I can imagine we couldn't use only the comments about soundboard recordings (that we don't have access to). Or we can use them and credit the source. I don't know what are the rules for that - I think you can cite only some certain amount of words or something.
Btw. I definitely don't consider myself, Greg or you experts on live recordings :) But I think all of us know something and if we put our "parts" together, we know a lot. There are some people I would love to see cooperate - Riku is a perfect example of somebody who knows a lot (and is a good friend ;-)
GH - I can imagine we couldn't use only the comments about soundboard recordings (that we don't have access to). Or we can use them and credit the source. I don't know what are the rules for that - I think you can cite only some certain amount of words or something.
Btw. I definitely don't consider myself, Greg or you experts on live recordings :) But I think all of us know something and if we put our "parts" together, we know a lot. There are some people I would love to see cooperate - Riku is a perfect example of somebody who knows a lot (and is a good friend ;-)
I'm nobody in the context of this conversation, but I have to tell you guys (John, Bob, Martin, Sebastian) that people like you are, to me, the most inspirational thing about Queen that is left.
You guys represent the passion. Queen's music awoke and inspired so much passion in my life, and over the years we saw the quality falling away and rampant commercialism taking over. That degrades the brand. I applaud the recent live efforts, but my passion remains with the music of the past.
It is people like yourselves, incredibly knowledgeable, dedicated, passionate fans and researchers that inspire me to continue my love affair with this band. People like Greg Brooks and his riddled-with-errors-Queen-Productions-approved book leave me cold. The machine is making way too much noise these days. The process has been automated and the product suffers badly from it. The real heart of the Queen enterprise is now here, amongst the fans. Brian and Roger may reclaim it one day if they ever deign to release a surprising and satisfying box set, but judging them on their recent form, I'm not holding my breath.
I am very curious about the legal limitations on the publication of a book detailing Queen's live career. John, your post was wonderfully articulate and informative, but can they seriously stop anyone from publishing such a work? And a better question: Why on Earth would they want to? If leaglly possible, Sir GH should write his own book. It would no doubt outsell GB's 10 to 1. If that is legally impossible, it is a sad state of affairs indeed that QP keeps on rewarding the wrong people.
I too think that queenconcerts is a stellar resource, and I use it almost daily. I'm sure that all Queen fans would applaud it being updated or added to in any way, and I can certainly see the logic of several of the most knowledgeable archivists and researchers putting their heads together.
The mediocrity of the product coming from Queen's relationship with the DoRo guys always annoyed me as well. You only ever get one chance and with Queen, so many were wasted... These days, it's QOL turn at doing its best to mediocratise the legacy.
I can only encourage all of you passionate fans out there to continue doing what you do, because without you, this band would lose thousands of fans, including myself. I've never been a fan of the machine, and QP has been heading in that direction for many years. Sites like this and people like us are what keeps the blood flowing in the veins of this band's fanbase. Keep up the good work.
You guys represent the passion. Queen's music awoke and inspired so much passion in my life, and over the years we saw the quality falling away and rampant commercialism taking over. That degrades the brand. I applaud the recent live efforts, but my passion remains with the music of the past.
It is people like yourselves, incredibly knowledgeable, dedicated, passionate fans and researchers that inspire me to continue my love affair with this band. People like Greg Brooks and his riddled-with-errors-Queen-Productions-approved book leave me cold. The machine is making way too much noise these days. The process has been automated and the product suffers badly from it. The real heart of the Queen enterprise is now here, amongst the fans. Brian and Roger may reclaim it one day if they ever deign to release a surprising and satisfying box set, but judging them on their recent form, I'm not holding my breath.
I am very curious about the legal limitations on the publication of a book detailing Queen's live career. John, your post was wonderfully articulate and informative, but can they seriously stop anyone from publishing such a work? And a better question: Why on Earth would they want to? If leaglly possible, Sir GH should write his own book. It would no doubt outsell GB's 10 to 1. If that is legally impossible, it is a sad state of affairs indeed that QP keeps on rewarding the wrong people.
I too think that queenconcerts is a stellar resource, and I use it almost daily. I'm sure that all Queen fans would applaud it being updated or added to in any way, and I can certainly see the logic of several of the most knowledgeable archivists and researchers putting their heads together.
The mediocrity of the product coming from Queen's relationship with the DoRo guys always annoyed me as well. You only ever get one chance and with Queen, so many were wasted... These days, it's QOL turn at doing its best to mediocratise the legacy.
I can only encourage all of you passionate fans out there to continue doing what you do, because without you, this band would lose thousands of fans, including myself. I've never been a fan of the machine, and QP has been heading in that direction for many years. Sites like this and people like us are what keeps the blood flowing in the veins of this band's fanbase. Keep up the good work.
Sir GH: "...I would like to quote some of the things you said in this topic (perhaps as part of a preface, or similar), and I would appreciate your expertise in places where I may not be able to prove certain things on my own."
JSS: That is why I post my "Ultimate Collection" threads. I want the best possible resource (or checklist) out there to help all collectors - large or small - to find something they may be looking for - or better still to provide additional information about material that may be news to them.
So ofcourse you can use my material. All I would ever ask for is a courtesy credit, which is something I would do anyway if the roles were reversed.
Sir GH: "...Queen fans deserve a resource where they can find EVERYTHING at once, full of facts, and only facts. Queenconcerts.com is the closest thing we have to that, and here's possibly the next idea to make it even better... Perhaps it may be the piece of work that will prompt Greg to once and for all open his mouth and give us some real information about what truly lies inside the Queen archives.
JSS: Here, here, I totaly agree, but with one minor provisio.
Not detracting from Martin's site (which I have a great admiration for) I think it wrong that such ideas be the exclusive property of one owner. I think that once these "ideas are out there", that they should be freely available on Martin's, on Bob's or on Queenzone. (Or if i was ever to get up off my lazy ass - I could make a site too!).
This is not about personal ego, or better sites, (at the end of the day I would probobly still use Martin's site as a reference) but making information PUBLICALLY available, and if we go down that road, it should be freely available, and not just the exclusive property of one individual. Perhaps interactive links could be an idea, but I digress, the point is - I agree, and also think it is a good idea.
JSS: That is why I post my "Ultimate Collection" threads. I want the best possible resource (or checklist) out there to help all collectors - large or small - to find something they may be looking for - or better still to provide additional information about material that may be news to them.
So ofcourse you can use my material. All I would ever ask for is a courtesy credit, which is something I would do anyway if the roles were reversed.
Sir GH: "...Queen fans deserve a resource where they can find EVERYTHING at once, full of facts, and only facts. Queenconcerts.com is the closest thing we have to that, and here's possibly the next idea to make it even better... Perhaps it may be the piece of work that will prompt Greg to once and for all open his mouth and give us some real information about what truly lies inside the Queen archives.
JSS: Here, here, I totaly agree, but with one minor provisio.
Not detracting from Martin's site (which I have a great admiration for) I think it wrong that such ideas be the exclusive property of one owner. I think that once these "ideas are out there", that they should be freely available on Martin's, on Bob's or on Queenzone. (Or if i was ever to get up off my lazy ass - I could make a site too!).
This is not about personal ego, or better sites, (at the end of the day I would probobly still use Martin's site as a reference) but making information PUBLICALLY available, and if we go down that road, it should be freely available, and not just the exclusive property of one individual. Perhaps interactive links could be an idea, but I digress, the point is - I agree, and also think it is a good idea.