queen and rodgers

Serry... wrote:

Fenderek, you don't know, I don't know - but I give theory, you don't - that's it. Don't believe it? Okay! Just say "I don't believe in this", but instead of this simple and polite answer I've read here everything about how it's hard for Paul to sing this or that, how I put Brian's name in shit, that I'm need to be banned from QueenZone...

When did I write you put anything in shame and you should be
banned? AND I explained taht it was more a reply to arlene and Brenski who were ON AND ON about the tour and simple maths regarding number of tacks in the setlist... You agve a theory- I gave one as well, didn't I? That IWIA was finished bty Brian- the rest had to just play whatever he wrote. According to John (GVHII bonus interview) that's how it was... With MIRACLE it could have been different- wrote by Freddie but arranged by everybody, with ppl adding bits and pieces... That's my theory- just giving you mine. I'm not angry at yours- I just disagree- I'm allowed, surely... :)
And Serry- when I was writing about the tour it was towards Brenski and Arlene. Simple as that. OK? Peace? :)

Fenderek wrote:

Serry... wrote:

Fenderek, you don't know, I don't know - but I give theory, you don't - that's it. Don't believe it? Okay! Just say "I don't believe in this", but instead of this simple and polite answer I've read here everything about how it's hard for Paul to sing this or that, how I put Brian's name in shit, that I'm need to be banned from QueenZone...

When did I write you put anything in shame and you should be
banned? AND I explained taht it was more a reply to arlene and Brenski who were ON AND ON about the tour and simple maths regarding number of tacks in the setlist... You agve a theory- I gave one as well, didn't I? That IWIA was finished bty Brian- th erest had to just play whatever he wrote. According to John (GVHII bonus interview) that's how it was...

No, no, no, it wasn't you! Read one of Bobby's replies to me, he wrote "If I could I'd ban you from Queenzone".

Serry... wrote:

Fenderek wrote:

Serry... wrote:

Fenderek, you don't know, I don't know - but I give theory, you don't - that's it. Don't believe it? Okay! Just say "I don't believe in this", but instead of this simple and polite answer I've read here everything about how it's hard for Paul to sing this or that, how I put Brian's name in shit, that I'm need to be banned from QueenZone...

When did I write you put anything in shame and you should be
banned? AND I explained taht it was more a reply to arlene and Brenski who were ON AND ON about the tour and simple maths regarding number of tacks in the setlist... You agve a theory- I gave one as well, didn't I? That IWIA was finished bty Brian- th erest had to just play whatever he wrote. According to John (GVHII bonus interview) that's how it was...

No, no, no, it wasn't you! Read one of Bobby's replies to me, he wrote "If I could I'd ban you from Queenzone".

OK- that IS ridiculous. I agree. So... :) What were we talking about? ;)

Hi Serry. To me, royalties are but a part of this thread. Brenski said "...I do think BM is trying to expunge FM from the 'live scene' - if at the very least to 'big up' or increase his own 'self-importance' must be terrible for the poor fella that even now, 14 years after FM's demise, he can't be seen as a song-writing equal by most queen fans."

Then Arlene seconded that saying that we are seeing Queen history rewritten or revised by Brian. Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. I'm not in the camp to determine what business arrangements they had for songwriting. If Brian taking credit for IWIA is revising history, I guess he's guilty. But this thread went south with Brenski's idiotic assertions about Brian taking Fred's songs from the setlist, and that he's not an equal (he's not, he's consistently better) to Fred as a songwriter. Freddie Mercury is a genius. No one disputes that. But as much as you feel Fenderek or Bobby Brown aren't responding to your questions about royalties, I've posted valid reasons why there are more Brian songs than Fred songs. Nobody answers or disputes them, they just go back to making a point with no fact other than the decreasing number of Freddie songs.

To sum up:

1. Fred's best rock songs were on 1 thru ANATO.
2. They aren't playing much early stuff.
3. Fred's later songs were not rock.
4. They do not fit the setlist.
5. This is a rock tour.
6. I've given a list of songs, what would you add?

The singer has to feel comfortable with the material, and a lot of Fred's fey, playful style of singing is the polar opposite of Paul Rodgers. Arlene states that Paul can sing ballads, but Freddie was a very feminine singer in phrasing and delivery, and I doubt that Paul would feel comfotable singing his ballads. Those are possible reasons for the setlist, not a conspiracy. By the way, Brian May has done a lot of work on the musical over the past 5 years, a lot more than Freddie Mercury, and Freddie's estate has made a lot of money.

AND JUST ON TOP OF THAT- Th etherad started with the post about the TOUR and lack of songs from last 3 albums- which I think I explained...

Brenski's idea was very simple actually: if he can't sing most of Fred's songs - then find someone else who'd be able to sing more of them than Paul. If it's just rock concert - no problems then, but if it's Queen concert..... then it's another case, I guess.

About royalties - don't worry Brian and Roger get more money than Freddie and John. Not because of the royalties, but because they're directors in the different companies which working in this project. Brian, Roger and Jim (in some of them). And this is fair, since John did nothing for the musical. The same, by the way, was about FM Tribute DVD re-issue - you probably seen the title "Tonleigh Ltd" - so directors of this Tonleigh are Brian and Roger, John is absent. It's not so easy, as it seems!

Well, I think we need to over this discussion, because we all still with our opinions and still believe in our own theories... Cheers.

double post, sorry

Serry... wrote:

Brenski's idea was very simple actually: if he can't sing most of Fred's songs - then find someone else who'd be able to sing more of them than Paul. If it's just rock concert - no problems then, but if it's Queen concert..... then it's another case, I guess.

15 yeas and they couldn't. PLUS- Than he'sd ahve struggled with Brian's ones.. Now I don't want a giog with freddie's "classics" and no Brian's hard rock guitar, sorry... Freddie was unique and we know it. Everybody knows that he's not there- so expecting pretty much the same thing from gig in 2005 is actually naive... I guess we're really talking about the taste- I like d what I've heard, it was DIFFERENT. I don't want a Mercury clone. It's not that Pul can't sing them- just that different ones sound faaar better. And for Brian and Roger they sounded stunning enough to make a decission to go on that tour... Somehow thay're not touring with Tony Vincent...

Serry... wrote:

About royalties - don't worry Brian and Roger get more money than Freddie and John. Not because of the royalties, but because they're directors in the different companies which working in this project. Brian, Roger and Jim (in some of them). And this is fair, since John did nothing for the musical. The same, by the way, was about FM Tribute DVD re-issue - you probably seen the title "Tonleigh Ltd" - so directors of this Tonleigh are Brian and Roger, John is absent. It's not so easy, as it seems!

But that seem only fair if they are the ones who are still doing it, right?

Serry... wrote:

Well, I think we need to over this discussion, because we all still with our opinions and still believe in our own theories... Cheers.

That's nothing wrong with it, is it? I still think it is or may be quite productive!

I thought too 'till the lines about putting Brian's name in shit and the idea of banning me for taking Brenski's side in this discussion.

And yes this is fair about WWRY - and I wrote it - this is fair :)

Serry... wrote:

Again... "These three people" were writing about ROYALTIES! R O Y A L T I E S! One of those people called Serry wrote about STUDIO tracks! About to whom they CREDITED!

It's like if I say: "2+2=4" and you'd reply to me with "3+3=6, shut up, Serry!". We still talking about different things... You want to talk about if song suited to Paul's voice or not, I wanted to talk about I Want It All and Mother Love but you ignored my posts (except BHM who was honest and said "I can't answer" - that's it!). I asked the question which no-one could answered, so you came with the answers to other questions which I haven't asked for and even wanted me to ban for it.

Serry, i don`t wish you to be banned from this forum. I think you`re still thinking about my words, and it wasn`t my intention to be agressive to you (but i can see i was too hard on you) and for that I`m sorry. Please take my apologies because the`re sincere.

OK, lets talk about your questions, because they`re a different subject from what i was discussing before.

For the good of this discussion, let me clarify that i was only against the idea that Brian choose what songs to perform live based on royalties. I never said that Brian didn`t like royalties from his songs, because in the end that`s his living and i`m not naive to that point and neither is he. And an author, totally deserves the royalties because an author is a creator!!

You want to know why I want it all is now credit for Brian instead of Queen. As it was sead before the answer is i don`t know, but i do have some theories about that:

When they made the decision to credit the Miracle album to the four of them, i don`t think they`ve donne it because royalties (it was, but on another context as i will explain later in this text), but instead i think it was for Freddie`s protecton (as someone stated before), because there are many hidden messages related to Freddie`s desease, and a feeling that Queen were about to be over. Now, imagine that Freddie wanted to express his feeling through his music (and at this time he was a very prolific writer), the most reasonable thing to do is:
If i want to have my songs on this record i should guive them (Brian, Roger ,John) a fair deal. So yes, i think this was Freddie`s idea to protect the band from the royalties issue, and this way he could put as many songs as he wants to (as long they`re good).
And, this was a new situation, because for the first time in Queen`s career they knew they wouldn`t tour so this was a way of protect the less prolific songwriters of the band (Roger, John- even though i think the eighties were better for this two guys than for Brian and Freddie), because this time there was only the royalties money from this album. No tour, no money!!

Since they had established this rule before the album sessions begining, it was easier for them to guive ideas for each others music, because this time they didn`t had to worry about credits. If the songs were to be credit to all of them, then all of them would feel free to contribute. That`s why you heard things like Roger did this, then Freddie added this, then John change this, etc, etc. It was a new way for them to be working toghether.

So, if you want my opinion, the biggest reason was:
- Since there was not going to be a tour for the Miracle album allowing them to earn millions, they were making shure that everyone would receive the same thing, allowing them to put as many own songs as they wanted not offending anyone feelings by doing so!!

Now, from all the songs, there appears to be one that was all writen by one member and that song is I Want it All. Why it is now credit to Brian, You ask?- In my opinion is just for people to know who the writer was more than the royalties thing. But tell me, is this song being credit in all releases, i mean in the re-release of the Miracle album, is this song be

The money they make from this tour is a pittance compared with back catlogue royalties, the musical productions, commercials, and interest from their accounts and still other revenue streams.

They're doing this for the music, I think. I think it's as simple as that.

The most they grossed for their 32-date tour? Think about it.

$200 tickets X 20,000 each concert = $4,000,000

X 32 = 128,000,000

divide by Freddie estate/John/Brian/Roger/Paul Rodgers = $25,600,000

That's the gross.

I don't know guys, after taxes. Me, I'm in a 32% tax bracket here in Brooklyn. Let's take that off of 25.6.

That's $17,408,000 left.

OK, overhead, paying Jim Beach, promoters, the venues, oh, and the other three musicians, I'd say the main parties involved cleared, what?

Anyone have a guess?

My last question: Do you really think there's extended feuding about the stuff, like on this thread, with the players involved, when they're already worth so much already.

Maybe. I doubt it. I think it has more to do with what makes a good show.

Name one Freddie song they could be doing but are omitting because of money, one John song.

I come up with "Somebody to Love." Maybe "Misfire." That's about it.

Kidding about "Misfire."

From brianmay.com this morning:

Giving voice to the many famous Queen songs is no easy feat, to be sure, and even Rodgers admits that it hasn't been easy filling Freddie Mercury's shoes.

PAUL RODGERS: "Queen music is very unique. Everything they do is kind of, just takes a left turn when you think it's gonna go right, all the time. And for that matter, you know, in that respect, it was quite a handful for me to get to grips with it."

By the way, you can hear John's interview where he's talking a little about Queen's business side:
http://www.deaky.com/sound/JDTalks.mp3

Serry... wrote:

By the way, you can hear John's interview where he's talking a little about Queen's business side:
http://www.deaky.com/sound/JDTalks.mp3

Thanks! Excellent interview and nice to hear John seem to enjoy opening up and talking a bit as he is always so clamped up in interviews normally giving one word answers.

Maybe he likes and prefers talking about the business side of Queen as opposed to the rote personal or repetitive questions.

Very good interview. what i think it`S funny about that site is the section "weekly news". I mean, if you run a site about john you could have put a more apropriate name like "anual news", and this is if you get lucky!!!

Take care