Well I will ALWAYS hold the excellent work of you Queenzone archivists in higher esteem than Greg Brooks and his error laden material.
Infact I may do a review on amazon.co.uk summarising the excellent points made in the posts on this thread.
I know it potentially wont do much...but hopefully it may dissuade people from buying the book, why should GB get £££ for a shoddy book and leeching from other people.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
John- I'll give you EXACT quote tomorrow, don't have the book on me at the very moment...
There is more. He still claims Spread Your Wings and Prophet's Song were played in Huston... At the end of the book there is a list of some bootlegs. At some point text says something about particular tracks on one CD (track 13), but... one thing is missing... tracklistings...
In the main text there's few times line "highlighted songs were (whatever happenbed to them). Another problem- nothing is fuckin' highlighted... The line(s) are simply from old text...
And there's really more. The only really (really!) great thing is Killers'79 European tour. But even there- the whole Mustapha thing... He claims it was played quite few times!!! WTF???
Can someone enlighten me?
Man- mistakes like that are just pathetic in the book that is dealing with DETAILS! There's not that much text in it- almost half of it is DETAILS. If you are refering to non-existant listings or putting some well-known pieces of information simply WRONG- that's lame. Simply LAME. There's some good stuff in there, but... I'm disappointed and angry I guess... After all- Golders Green is known by virtually everybody. When Official Archivist still in 2005 claims they played Hangman there- there's something seriously wrong...
There is more. He still claims Spread Your Wings and Prophet's Song were played in Huston... At the end of the book there is a list of some bootlegs. At some point text says something about particular tracks on one CD (track 13), but... one thing is missing... tracklistings...
In the main text there's few times line "highlighted songs were (whatever happenbed to them). Another problem- nothing is fuckin' highlighted... The line(s) are simply from old text...
And there's really more. The only really (really!) great thing is Killers'79 European tour. But even there- the whole Mustapha thing... He claims it was played quite few times!!! WTF???
Can someone enlighten me?
Man- mistakes like that are just pathetic in the book that is dealing with DETAILS! There's not that much text in it- almost half of it is DETAILS. If you are refering to non-existant listings or putting some well-known pieces of information simply WRONG- that's lame. Simply LAME. There's some good stuff in there, but... I'm disappointed and angry I guess... After all- Golders Green is known by virtually everybody. When Official Archivist still in 2005 claims they played Hangman there- there's something seriously wrong...
Fenderek,
I wouldn't waste your time mate - you're better off going to the QPL offices and trying to speak to someone face-to-face about all this.
In my experience, QPL are noticeably faceless when it comes to having to "put things right" and they just have no interest in anything that appears on the web unless it's of their own design.
Put it all in a detailed letter and find a way of getting it physically into the hands of someone and ensure that they read it. They just don't care.
I wouldn't waste your time mate - you're better off going to the QPL offices and trying to speak to someone face-to-face about all this.
In my experience, QPL are noticeably faceless when it comes to having to "put things right" and they just have no interest in anything that appears on the web unless it's of their own design.
Put it all in a detailed letter and find a way of getting it physically into the hands of someone and ensure that they read it. They just don't care.
John- that's the exact quote-
"(part from the old text about bad quality bootlegs from golders Green) NEW BIT- "Having said that, however, in 2004 I came across an original BBC transcription copy, in pristine condition, featuring the long forgotten (sic) Radio 1 announcer of the time, and snapped it up with all ahste"
Benn- I guess you're right. Just one mistake, shhowing how did he UPDATED his book... June 19 1986, Lleiden- in the setlist we can see '39. WTF one may ask. But wait- there's an explenation- "(quote)Brian performs a short extract of 39 at this concert . Why? Because July 19 is his 39th birthday". So he played 39 on June 19th because his birthday is July 19th... Riiiight... But ahve a lookj at July 19th- Cologne. Now we know he palyed it there. Have a look at the setlist... Nothing...
How can anybody trust ANY information in this book if you find mistakes like that? Maybe he copy/pasted those setlist wrong in more cases? Maybe he messed up half of them?
Benn- is there a point writing any letter? On the other hand- is there a point of me writing about it here? Probably not... In both cases...
I can't understand how few fans can be alright with that... I hope Bob's idea (project- whatever) will materialise with a help of those who really know something and CARE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROPERLY...
"(part from the old text about bad quality bootlegs from golders Green) NEW BIT- "Having said that, however, in 2004 I came across an original BBC transcription copy, in pristine condition, featuring the long forgotten (sic) Radio 1 announcer of the time, and snapped it up with all ahste"
Benn- I guess you're right. Just one mistake, shhowing how did he UPDATED his book... June 19 1986, Lleiden- in the setlist we can see '39. WTF one may ask. But wait- there's an explenation- "(quote)Brian performs a short extract of 39 at this concert . Why? Because July 19 is his 39th birthday". So he played 39 on June 19th because his birthday is July 19th... Riiiight... But ahve a lookj at July 19th- Cologne. Now we know he palyed it there. Have a look at the setlist... Nothing...
How can anybody trust ANY information in this book if you find mistakes like that? Maybe he copy/pasted those setlist wrong in more cases? Maybe he messed up half of them?
Benn- is there a point writing any letter? On the other hand- is there a point of me writing about it here? Probably not... In both cases...
I can't understand how few fans can be alright with that... I hope Bob's idea (project- whatever) will materialise with a help of those who really know something and CARE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROPERLY...
What I think we all need to bear in mind is that anyone who devotes their "leisure time" to a band in the way that clearly people like Scully and JSS do has more of a vested interest in getting things right and correct that someone that is doing it all as a job of work.
Let's face it, how many times do you go to work, make a mistake and not let it concern you too much? But how many times do you make a mistake at something outside of work and it annoys you 10 times as much?
What you will possibly also find (and I know this from a bit of experience) is that working for people that are / were your heroes can be very disillusioning in terms of how you THINK things will be as opposed to the way things really are. You become nothing more than an employee, someone that the organisation uses for their benefit and the enjoyment and excitement quickli dissipates - it may well be that Greg is suffering from this but is far too prescious to ever admit it. Something that I can kind of understand, but would also go a long way to giving pweople "out here" a better understanding of what he may be up against.
The value of a project, like the one that has been mooted here, is far greater BECAUSE of the amount of time, care and detail people would put into it because it is MEANT to be seen by other people that care deeply about how Queen is represented in the public domain.
Greg's books only go to show a lack of care and attention to detail, something that he should really recognise publicly, but obviously never will.
Let's face it, how many times do you go to work, make a mistake and not let it concern you too much? But how many times do you make a mistake at something outside of work and it annoys you 10 times as much?
What you will possibly also find (and I know this from a bit of experience) is that working for people that are / were your heroes can be very disillusioning in terms of how you THINK things will be as opposed to the way things really are. You become nothing more than an employee, someone that the organisation uses for their benefit and the enjoyment and excitement quickli dissipates - it may well be that Greg is suffering from this but is far too prescious to ever admit it. Something that I can kind of understand, but would also go a long way to giving pweople "out here" a better understanding of what he may be up against.
The value of a project, like the one that has been mooted here, is far greater BECAUSE of the amount of time, care and detail people would put into it because it is MEANT to be seen by other people that care deeply about how Queen is represented in the public domain.
Greg's books only go to show a lack of care and attention to detail, something that he should really recognise publicly, but obviously never will.
Good point, Benn. Greg, however, is an employee. The problem lies with a management team that obviously doesn't care about quality control. I've stated before, I thought Queen's quality control during the Elektra years (US) was first rate in every area of their career. It slipped at Capitol, then became a joke at Hollywood. I mean if Queen were known for anything, it was their studio craftsmanship and attention to detail. To have Hollywood release the original batch of CDs with glitches and missing sections is inexcuseable. It's your music, how could you let a butchered product go out? You do if it's all about $.
And, ultimately, as I have maintained for a number of years, the responsibility MUST lie with Brian, Roger and John. They are at fault for all of this. If they still have control over, say, the release of their historical recordings, then the Hollywood fiasco remains firmly at their feet. They have remedied taht to a certain extent with the mini-LP versions, but that at no little ADDITIONAL cost to their fans. The ideal scenario would have been for Queen to offer to take back the Hollywood albums in exchange for the mini-LP versions as a goodwill gesture, which The Who did with the initial batch of faulty versions of Face Dances (but interestingly didn't do again with the "fauly" versions of the poorly mastered A Quick One).
However, THAT depends on what control they have actually signed over to other people. If someone has purchased control of that side of things, then there is nothing they can do, but again, they should accept responsibility for that publicly.
At the end of the day, it's their art. Their creation. You'd like to think that, being as they showed such care and devotion to their art when it was new, that they would exercise that self same set of beliefs now that it's history.
I'd bet a lot on the fact that if you ased Brian, Roger or John what their view was they would have no idea what you are talking about......
However, THAT depends on what control they have actually signed over to other people. If someone has purchased control of that side of things, then there is nothing they can do, but again, they should accept responsibility for that publicly.
At the end of the day, it's their art. Their creation. You'd like to think that, being as they showed such care and devotion to their art when it was new, that they would exercise that self same set of beliefs now that it's history.
I'd bet a lot on the fact that if you ased Brian, Roger or John what their view was they would have no idea what you are talking about......
The new book still has hundreds of errors, both factual and grammatical. Greg refused to include most of my corrections, for whatever reason.
70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard.
The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap.
It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget.
I respectfully declined.
I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?
I have been reading this entire thread for the 1st time and I would welcome your website, as well as I think it is a great idea. Not anything against Greg. Just putting correct information out there and another valuable information resource for Queen fans.