the new release from greg brooks' book

Bob- you can't imagine how much I'd love to help. Unfortunatelly all I can do is make some coffee ;) Anyone? :)
Great innitiative, IMO. It IS huge (or can be).

djaef wrote:

and I can certainly see the logic of several of the most knowledgeable archivists and researchers putting their heads together.

Here, here!!! I haven't heard a better idea in years

There's one main thing that I blame Queen (Productions) for - total ignorance of the fan sites which are doing for the popularity of the band much more than all UK journalists together. Yet it will be the journalists who will get the backstage passes and VIP tickets and interviews and...

On the other hand, it leaves us a lot of independence and freedom. I'm allowed to say "Queen really fucked up concert XY" (and I have absolutely no problem with saying that - honesty is much more important for me than loyalty). If I was in the position of Greg, I could never say that (or else I'd be fired immediately).

So if the situation stayed like this + if I was allowed to ask the band some questions or do interview with them, I would be happy. But I'm not Greg Brooks, "only" a Czech guy so there's no chance I can get answers to questions that are interesting for me, or even for the whole fan base.

Scully, re:

> 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.

Wouldn't make any difference - a board recording that's hit the street as a bootleg is the same as an audience recording that has become a boot.

After all, there's nothing stopping you putting a quote from one of the band members at a show on your site and just saying somethign along the lines of "And a fan remembered hearing "x" say.......", is there.

Your site IS the encyclopedia - Greg has plagiarised this material and should bloody well be outed as having done so. Perhaps Omnibus Press would be interested in receiving some examples of material that he is claiming is his own...... I have a good contact (through The Who) at Omnibus and if you would like me to pass him anything along these lines, please mail me at:

[email protected]

"Danger Will Robinson..."

I think that the only danger which remains is how such a collaboration will be percieved by fellow fans.

Sir GH: "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."

To be honest, This is my main concern. While I have continually stated that I have no problems with Mr. B, there are still those who think that some mafioso type fued exists between us (and for me at least) this is not so.

While Martin may be free to say; "Queen really fucked up concert XY", to say the same against the Official Archivist is a far more serious cardinal sin.

Mr B. is not the most understanding of people, therefore, while providing your "information to the masses" may be laudible, you do realise, that you will be stroking yourself off his Christmas card list!

JSS, re:

>>Sir GH: "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."

>>To be honest, This is my main concern.

Why should that concern you? Surely the whole idea of it is to be able to render incorrect / incomplete information / publications obsolete as better and fuller information surfaces? Doesn't each new mastering of ANATO render the previous one obsolete because it's in a better format /sound quality?

I approached Omnibus a number of times with book projects surrounding The Who - whilst they were lauded as being great ideas, it was felt that the Internet was a far better medium in which to publish material as it can be more easily maintained / updated and it can also be far more interactie than any book can ever be.

It would be interesting to see the sales figures for Queen Live - I would imagine that it only sold to Queen fans -the reprint probably even less so after all the errors contained in the first print.

I fail to understand why we are being so generous and forgiving of someone that has blatantly stolen other people's intellectual property and clearly shown no regard for the intellect of fans that are his target audience by failing to produce something that is factually correct.

Benn: What a positive posting. If I was a footballer, I would certainly want you defending behind me!

I guess the truth is I am a coward - as I hate conflict, and I am quite happy to negotiate for an easier life, and I would not wish to inflict conflict upon others.

However, I also stand for a sharpening of "truth" and pushing the Queen envelope forwards - so if that means treading on Mr B's work - so be it. (Even if it means trampling all over my own previous work - so be it).

I just do not want such a move to be misconstrued as another dart - in a supposed fued - which does not exist, as to be honest, I can't be ars*d with all that hassle again.

Nevertheless, if it came down to a choice of being either diplomatic, or being part of an amateur Queen think tank... hey Ben, move over, you are sitting in MY chair!!! ;-)

Benn, thanks for your posts but I'm definitely NOT willing to fight against Greg in any way. As I said, this is not a public competition or a revenge or anything like that. It's supposed to be an alternative to Greg's book - an alternative that will be (or already is) far superior to the book. I don't feel that Greg is abusing my (or anybody else's) work in a big way (although I do know that he does that to a certain extent).

John, I highly respect your knowledge but I often get a feeling that you do have something personal against Greg ;-) You're very intelligent and you have quite a big ability to manipulate with people... that can be dangerous :-)

...

Mr Scully: John, I highly respect your knowledge but I often get a feeling that you do have something personal against Greg ;-) You're very intelligent and you have quite a big ability to manipulate with people... that can be dangerous :-)

Martin - Can I say from the start that my respect for you is mutual, and I thank you for thinking that I am an intelligent person. But I am also a very open person.

It is true that I have had disagreements with GB, but I have also had disagreements with (amongst others) Sir GH, Sebastian, and even your own good self, but NONE of this has ever been personal, and after the heat of discussion and arguing my own corner, I have been able to look back and think “I disagree”, but it has never been more than that.

It is also true that I like to poke fun of GB, as in “the official Queen archivists says…” but again this is not personal and meant in the same sense as “according the official Queen International Fan Club…” both are a stab at “officialdom” and no one would read the latter as a personal slur against Jackie Gunn.

However, apart from corrections in Queen sites, I have never really attacked him as a person, or abused his name. I would do him no harm, and I wish him well, but I do not think he deserves an easy ride – as respect is earned, not a right, and unfortunately, you are correct to suggest that I do not respect him.

But please let’s get this into some sort of context, and proportion. For all the bad blood between us, I hold nothing personal against the man, and I have no hidden agenda. I have been as open and transparent as I can, but, if people still wish to believe otherwise, then there is no more I can do to convince them.

JSS, re:

> However, apart from corrections in Queen sites, I have never really attacked him as a person, or abused his name. I would do him no harm, and I wish him well, but I do not think he deserves an easy ride – as respect is earned, not a right, and unfortunately, you are correct to suggest that I do not respect him.

This, I think is the nub of the matter. Wheer conversations happen around the written word, it's VERY easy to get the wrong end of the stick to to read inference / emphasis into something that is absolutely NOT meant to be there.

I would have thought that GB would ENCOURAGE the active participation of people within the collecting community in order to enhance and improve the work that he is doing. I have no personal vendetta against GB, but I despise the fact that, as an OFFICIAL archivist, he is not doing "everything he possibly can" to ensure that OFFICIAL material is fatually correct when the inormation is within his grasp.

I'm currently assisting one of the associate producers that is working with Murray Lerner on a new film project about The Who - they (Lerner and The Who) have actively sought the involvement of knowledgeable people to nsure that the project is carried out to the best of their ability and remains both faithful to the band and to the people that have loved the band for so many years.

Queen appear to not want this to happen and all it takes is a short e-mail or phone call to make it happen - there are no excuses.

Martin, re:

> Benn, thanks for your posts but I'm definitely NOT willing to fight against Greg in any way. As I said, this is not a public competition or a revenge or anything like that.

I'm not suggesting at all that you are or that you should - your whole attitude to this is exceptional in my opinion. BUT, the fact that your website is there for all to see alongside GB's book, by extension makes it public competition. Were we to carry out a poll amongst Queen fans as to what THEIR primary source of information is for Live Queen information, I would be willing to bet that 90% at least would say your web site as opposed to GB's book.

> It's supposed to be an alternative to Greg's book - an alternative that will be (or already is) far superior to the book. I don't feel that Greg is abusing my (or anybody else's) work in a big way (although I do know that he does that to a certain extent).

I can't see how you can feel so relaxed about someone else gaining credit for the exceptional hard work and commitment you have put into your site over the years; GB has now produced two versions of this book that are both factually incorrect and has the temerity to charge £15 for the privellage. Your site is there for everyione to use for free and is pretty much as factually correct as it's possible to be and more. Within that £15 GB has information that he has taken from you and given you no credit for. It's appauling.

Your site IS the primary source for information - it is a better resource than what is available officially.

Sebastian, re:

> I doubt it. I don't know him, but the few things I've seen make me think that if he's knocked down that way, that certainly wouldn't prompt him to improve his "service", instead he would just tell people to fuck off and would go and rest.

I would imagine that QPL have him signed to some kind of non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from saying anything to anyone about the archive. The Q&A sessions he has carried out at various conventions over the years have probably seen GB have to run EVERYTHING by someone within QPL before he can actually say or play anything because of the NDA.

> We, or at least me, would have happily done it for free. Still they managed to get some help (not from me), but not enough. Of course that's not related to QP, that's just something different.

You see, this is the problem. Official channels appear to be embarassed that people outside of "the organisation" have more *correct* knowledge. That's fine, but what's worse is the fact that they appear to be scared to ask. Remember that the BBC can only have made the programme with the official say so of QPL.....

> If I were they manager, I wouldn't recommend a box set release. For any band except Beatles, it's not a very good idea.

Why not? It re-ignited interest in The Who in '94. FM's solo collection wa of huge interest and it received great publicity and reviews. Queen are a big name worldwide because of the Live Aid appearance - any archive release will ignite interest in the band's history for new and old fans.

I've actually been working on my own book project over the past few years. For those of you who are aware of the excellent, indispensable David Bowie book, "The Complete David Bowie", it is essentially an encyclopedia of information about songs, albums, tours, movies - virtually anything related to Bowie. It has an alphabetical listing of every song, released or unreleased, that he's ever done as long as a description augmented by quotes, while the album section more or less chronicles the genesis of that album from inception to release, as well as providing contemporary press and band quotes regarding the album.

That's really only the tip of the iceberg - there is so much information provided in that book that it would be impossible to put it all online. Similiarly, I have started work on a project like that related to Queen, which I started way back in 2001. I had a fair amount of research collected, but, due to an unfortunate hard drive crash back in September 2004, most of it was lost, so I had to start from scratch. I did manage to get a fair amount finished before I decided to email Brian and ask him what his thoughts on such a venture were. He replied, saying it was a wonderful idea but that I should get in touch with Greg Brooks.

So, I emailed him in December 2004, and he thought it was a good idea but that he, too, was working on a similar project. He asked me to send some sample files; when I did, I didn't hear back from him until about January 2005. I asked him what his thoughts were, and he replied that he was busy but he liked what he saw. He suggested we meet up, but, so far, this has not happened. I get the feeling that he might have used some of my information for his own project. I was initially deterred to not complete the project, as Greg already had something in the pipeline, and he is the "official" source, so how would mine be any better?

Then I started to think, and with the inspiration of such posters on here as Sir GH, Mr. Scully, John S Stuart, Benn, Sebastian, and about twelve thousand others I can't even remember - basically, the die-hard fans - I started the project up again, because, with their information, a decent publication can be put out. I don't claim to know everything about Queen, but, I am a die-hard fan, and I have amassed so much information over the years, yet I'm still able to remain objective and unbiased toward their work. I'm not afraid to criticize, because Queen were not, and are still not, infallible. But I want every Queen fan to have the information that I have access to, and would prefer that something definitive finally be put out for all to see.

Is it really too much to ask for? I suppose it's one of those "If no one else will do it..." situations, and I don't see anyone from Queen Productions, who has access to so much good stuff that every fan wants to hear, stepping up to the plate. I've been working hard on this project for a while, and "no one's gonna stop me now". I want this to come out, but I can honestly say that I trust anyone on this board more than I would ever trust what Greg Brooks says.

Djaef wrote that "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."

Absolutely!!! I think that Brian and Roger are all about sales records, whereas they were about music before. And Djaef, I'm so happy that you mentioned how commercialism "degrades the band." It does, and it's not Brian or Roger who will write the legacy of Queen, it will be others. And history will not be kind to the post-Freddie Mercury period. For one example, the original WWRY is the definitive masterwork. It's iconic, and will be part of the world as long as sports is around. Brian can rationalize all he wants, but the versions with 5ive, the Hall of Fame, John Farnham and for the Pepsi commercial all devalue the original. Same with WATC with Robie Williams. Honestly, other than the fact that they'd get press and a boost on catalogue sales, what would they do that for? It paled in comparison to the original, and putting the Queen name on it cheapens it. Brian can say "it's only music", but that's his opinion and right as its creator. I think the early Queen catalogue is art. I wouldn't want Da Vinci to repaint the Mona Lisa 3 or 4 times with the hot painter of the day, and that's what's happening with these bad choices.

BTW, Sebastian, I meant to imply that 80s Queen, not including Innuendo which I agree is an album in the spirit of their earlier work, was all about singles. Good on all of you for your efforts.

In my few short emails with Greg I found him not to be not the brightest mind on the block, that fact that he needs to "Look" up stuff when most people ( well the die hards) can recall most set-list and Live facts without having to spend a few days looking up the info...sadly seeing how he was I kept what I knew to myself.
In just some way (IMO) he just does not appear as trustworthy as one could be.

I sent him an email asking him about the "Another Miracle" project and why it was cancelled, and what extra tracks were going to be put on there, and he responded with "THANKS, ALL THE BEST". It confused me to no end.