I started some project, writing my own trading website, but ALSO started to check Greg's book and find all the possible mistakes and errors... I only just started- came through about 20 shows and it's just getting worse and worse... This book isn't 99% accurate- more like 50%...
Anyway- I want to post an extract from what I wrote so far, one of the things that actually m ade me laugh REALLY hard... At the same time- it pissed me off big time... Here goes:
************************************************************
PAGE 39/40
Bristol, November 29th 1973. This is just ridiculous…
The set list in the book looks like this:
Procession / Father To Son / Son And Daughter / Ogre Battle / Hangman / Great King Rat / Jailhouse Rock; Shake, Rattle And Roll; Stupid Cupid; Jailhouse Rock (reprise) / Keep Yourself Alive / Liar / Big Spender; Bama Lama Bama Lou
The set list in reality:
Procession / Father To Son / Son And Daughter / Ogre Battle / Hangman / Keep Yourself Alive / Liar / Jailhouse Rock; Stupid Cupid; Jailhouse Rock (reprise) / Big Spender; Bama Lama Bama Lou
What makes it really laughable is the text that follows Bristol set list…:
“During the main chorus of ‘Liar’, John adds some rare vocal backing. This is a technically complex composition, but still it converts well to the live situation, building into a powerful crescendo of driving drums, bass and lead guitar. This is a powerhouse concert favourite.
Having given Brian a barely audible cue, exactly as rehearsed, the band crash into a breathtaking rendition of ‘Jailhouse Rock’. A few seconds of ‘Shake, Rattle’ and ‘Stupid Cupid’ follow, before ‘Jailhouse’ is reprised and than Brian fingers the instantly recognisable opening chords of ‘Big Spender’. Little Richard’s ‘Bama Lama Bama Lou’ concludes the show with lyrics borrowed from ‘Tutti Frutti’. This was the shape of things to come.”
SO, the text says that “Rock’n’Roll Medley” was played AFTER ‘Liar’, but the in the set list it’s BEFORE… Great, I hope the cataloguing of Queen studio work is done this little bit more accurately… But let’s stop here for a while, than, because…
THERE IS NO RECORDING FROM 1973 THAT WOULD PROVE “Rock’n’Roll Medley” BEING PLAYED EARLIER IN THE SHOW THAN THE ENCORE.
In the book, almost ENTIRE 1973 UK TOUR has those songs FOLLOWED by KYA / Liar… I’d say- THEY ARE ALL WRONG!!!
We are talking following set lists:
· 12-11-1973 Leeds
· 15-11-1973 Worcester
· 16-11-1973 Lancaster
· 21-11-1973 Preston
· 23-11-1973 Glasgow
· 07-12-1973 London
· 14-12-1973 London
· 22-12-1973 Peterborough
· 28-12-1973 Liverpool
· 02-02-1974 Melbourne
If that book is 90% (or 99% as Greg claims in the Introduction) accurate than I’m Donald Duck. Every single set list between Leeds gig and Melbourne 1974 is WRONG, is simply copy / pasted and all contain exactly the same mistake. If we add to it the fact that before mentioned fragment of the text actually CONTRADICTS all of them, that there isn’t even ONE recording in circulation that would actually confirm the set lists given by Greg, yet all of them CONTRADICT... To make matters even more laughable and to prove that this part of the book is ONE BIG JOKE- on PAGE 245 we have “Typical Queen Concert Set Lists” (taken from queenconcerts, I'm sure). And what do we see under 1973?
We see this set list:
“Procession / Father To Son / Son And Daughter / Ogre Battle / Hangman / Keep Yourself Alive / Liar / Jailhouse Rock / Shake Rattle And Roll / Stupid Cupid / Be Bob A Lula / jailhouse Rock (reprise) / Big Spender / Bama Lama Bama Lou.”
We got to the point where the TYPICAL set list from that period DOESN’T match ANY of the set list given in the main text. Is this a laugh or is this a laugh? I’m getting seriously worried about Queen archives… This man is all over the place… Accuracy my ass…
****************************************************************
I knew it was bad..
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Thank you. Please go on with this work.
I'm also starting a project. Only much, much bigger!
I'm also dealing with Queen bootlegs, setlists etc. So thanks for this nice piece of information. If you have more to come, than it's welcome. I'll credit you in my project!
Cheers.
I'm also dealing with Queen bootlegs, setlists etc. So thanks for this nice piece of information. If you have more to come, than it's welcome. I'll credit you in my project!
Cheers.
Nice work, but keep in mind that now Greg can ask Brian some things that are`nt comon knowledge (he would be a fool not to ask!), and even though i believe that Brian don`t remember at all, don`t forget that he`s a Queen collector, and he can have some papers with the setlist (handwritten by Freddie, etc). I`m telling this because if you`re right then i really don`t understand how it`s possible for an insider to do so many mistakes... and i`m beginning to get worried...
Take care
Take care
That's not just the case "now" - that's been the case for the last 6-7 years.
I'm still wondering how this Greg Brooks fella made it as Queen's 'official' archivist. He's so full of shit, it's not funny! Couldn't they get that other Jenkins fella? He seemed to know what he was talking about.
Actually, screw them both - I'll do the job.
Actually, screw them both - I'll do the job.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FLASH DANNY wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm still wondering how this Greg Brooks fella made it as Queen's 'official' archivist. He's so full of shit, it's not funny! Couldn't they get that other Jenkins fella? He seemed to know what he was talking about.
Actually, screw them both - I'll do the job.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, that we here in 'Queenzone' have done a far better, and a more professional job between us - and the sad truth is we have access to so very little.
Which just goes to show, that maticulous research, no matter how limited the resources are to begin with, is all about standards, and if standards are kept high, it is only natural that the results of those standards will be high also, but if the research is sloppy to begin with, then it is only natural we should end up with an altogether sloppy product.
Therefore I extend my congratulations to people like Bob (Sir GH), Wilki, Zeni, Serri, Fenderek, and Mr. Scully (just to name a few - sorry if I have accidently omitted any one) for without their efforts, the study of Queen would have been set back about 20 years or so, as these are the REAL Queen experts, and theirs is the work which I enjoy reading the most.
Let's keep up the good work lads, as between us, we are keeping the real Queen story alive.
Actually, screw them both - I'll do the job.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, that we here in 'Queenzone' have done a far better, and a more professional job between us - and the sad truth is we have access to so very little.
Which just goes to show, that maticulous research, no matter how limited the resources are to begin with, is all about standards, and if standards are kept high, it is only natural that the results of those standards will be high also, but if the research is sloppy to begin with, then it is only natural we should end up with an altogether sloppy product.
Therefore I extend my congratulations to people like Bob (Sir GH), Wilki, Zeni, Serri, Fenderek, and Mr. Scully (just to name a few - sorry if I have accidently omitted any one) for without their efforts, the study of Queen would have been set back about 20 years or so, as these are the REAL Queen experts, and theirs is the work which I enjoy reading the most.
Let's keep up the good work lads, as between us, we are keeping the real Queen story alive.
Actually Greg is most of time plain stupid.
An example:
According to Greg, Queen played Keep Yourself Alive at Golders Green back in 1973.
As we all know, this can't be true. The guy who introduces Queen and talks about them, clearly states: "Queen pointed out that they won't be playing the song that was released as a single, that came of their first album, the song Keep Yourself Alive". Or something like that.
Is that ignorant, or what???
An example:
According to Greg, Queen played Keep Yourself Alive at Golders Green back in 1973.
As we all know, this can't be true. The guy who introduces Queen and talks about them, clearly states: "Queen pointed out that they won't be playing the song that was released as a single, that came of their first album, the song Keep Yourself Alive". Or something like that.
Is that ignorant, or what???
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FLASH DANNY wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm still wondering how this Greg Brooks fella made it as Queen's 'official' archivist. He's so full of shit, it's not funny! Couldn't they get that other Jenkins fella? He seemed to know what he was talking about.
Actually, screw them both - I'll do the job.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, that we here in 'Queenzone' have done a far better, and a more professional job between us - and the sad truth is we have access to so very little.
Which just goes to show, that maticulous research, no matter how limited the resources are to begin with, is all about standards, and if standards are kept high, it is only natural that the results of those standards will be high also, but if the research is sloppy to begin with, then it is only natural we should end up with an altogether sloppy product.
Therefore I extend my congratulations to people like Bob (Sir GH), Wilki, Zeni, Serri, Fenderek, and Mr. Scully (just to name a few - sorry if I have accidently omitted any one) for without their efforts, the study of Queen would have been set back about 20 years or so, as these are the REAL Queen experts, and theirs is the work which I enjoy reading the most.
Let's keep up the good work lads, as between us, we are keeping the real Queen story alive.[/QUOTE]
Well said
Actually, screw them both - I'll do the job.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, that we here in 'Queenzone' have done a far better, and a more professional job between us - and the sad truth is we have access to so very little.
Which just goes to show, that maticulous research, no matter how limited the resources are to begin with, is all about standards, and if standards are kept high, it is only natural that the results of those standards will be high also, but if the research is sloppy to begin with, then it is only natural we should end up with an altogether sloppy product.
Therefore I extend my congratulations to people like Bob (Sir GH), Wilki, Zeni, Serri, Fenderek, and Mr. Scully (just to name a few - sorry if I have accidently omitted any one) for without their efforts, the study of Queen would have been set back about 20 years or so, as these are the REAL Queen experts, and theirs is the work which I enjoy reading the most.
Let's keep up the good work lads, as between us, we are keeping the real Queen story alive.[/QUOTE]
Well said
Rick- what is the project?
As I said- if there is one and anyone is willing to work together on all that stuff- I'm in... It's always easier to spot a mistake if you have 2-3, even more eyes looking for them...
Anyway- I always thought sth like Tokyo 1st of May 1975 is one of the most common bootlegs out there...And the set list is wrong... It's just absolutely laughable...
Yes, I agree- how can INSIDER make so many mistakes, ESPECIALLY when the data IS avaliable...
I agree with Bobby_Brown, he can ask Brian and HAVE access to info that we don't. I will definitelly not be able to cross check most of the info on LIVE KILLERS or CRAZY TOUR given by him... But at the same time- I also don't think he asked Brian too many questions... The whole "updating" was just as lazy as it's possible...! But what I can cross check is all the shows WE have access to (and my ears to hear if there are any edits in the recording or not) on bootlegs, I can use my common sense, I can... Well, that's all I can... But if like (let's say) 50% of the shows that are on the market DOESN'T match the set lists given by Greg- do you believe that the ones he copy / pasted onto the shows that aren't circulating (and he did it even before he was an INSIDER) are actually real?
I don't- I personally think NOWADAYS, this "update" stands proudly alongside Rare Live... And that's the biggest insult I could think of... ;)
As I said- if there is one and anyone is willing to work together on all that stuff- I'm in... It's always easier to spot a mistake if you have 2-3, even more eyes looking for them...
Anyway- I always thought sth like Tokyo 1st of May 1975 is one of the most common bootlegs out there...And the set list is wrong... It's just absolutely laughable...
Yes, I agree- how can INSIDER make so many mistakes, ESPECIALLY when the data IS avaliable...
I agree with Bobby_Brown, he can ask Brian and HAVE access to info that we don't. I will definitelly not be able to cross check most of the info on LIVE KILLERS or CRAZY TOUR given by him... But at the same time- I also don't think he asked Brian too many questions... The whole "updating" was just as lazy as it's possible...! But what I can cross check is all the shows WE have access to (and my ears to hear if there are any edits in the recording or not) on bootlegs, I can use my common sense, I can... Well, that's all I can... But if like (let's say) 50% of the shows that are on the market DOESN'T match the set lists given by Greg- do you believe that the ones he copy / pasted onto the shows that aren't circulating (and he did it even before he was an INSIDER) are actually real?
I don't- I personally think NOWADAYS, this "update" stands proudly alongside Rare Live... And that's the biggest insult I could think of... ;)
As I said before: Greg B. Isn't the right man for our lovely Queen. Could that guy just visit queenzone a little bit more. Or queenconcerts.com and all our other beloved sites. Most of us know far more, concerning material, than Greg and he is being PAYED (queenproductions)to do his work properly and accurate.
I have been reading the book also and he forgot what I was hoping the most: A complete list of filmed bootlegs around and filmed tapes that are in the archive of queenproductions and other (television)companies. Greg only wrote what is known by all of us. Pure Shit this book! Like Freddie used to quote: No, NOT that crap again!
I have been reading the book also and he forgot what I was hoping the most: A complete list of filmed bootlegs around and filmed tapes that are in the archive of queenproductions and other (television)companies. Greg only wrote what is known by all of us. Pure Shit this book! Like Freddie used to quote: No, NOT that crap again!
Nice job!!! Keep it up!!! Brooks did to us Queen fans what Salmon Rushdie did in the late 80's with his book The Satanic Versus. He pissed off the entire Muslim world and they put out a "hit' on his ass. Maybe we should put our own personal "fatwah" on Brooks. Hey Fenderek, if I can help in anyway please let me know. I've gone to a few shows back in the 70's and I'll gladly give any info that I possibly can.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queenman!! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Could that guy just visit queenzone a little bit more. [/QUOTE]
His last visits on QZ weren't too much polite and gentle...
His last visits on QZ weren't too much polite and gentle...
You guys are so right, I haven't read Greg's book yet but hearing all of your comments I won't be purchasing it.
It's just a shame that such a man is in control of the archives, very sad. You guys would probably do a much better job. If I can offer any help, don't hesitate to ask!
It's just a shame that such a man is in control of the archives, very sad. You guys would probably do a much better job. If I can offer any help, don't hesitate to ask!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queenman!! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Could that guy just visit queenzone a little bit more. [/QUOTE]
His last visits on QZ weren't too much polite and gentle...[/QUOTE]
what was it he said again?
it mightn't even have been him!
[/QUOTE]
agree, someone give us a link
His last visits on QZ weren't too much polite and gentle...[/QUOTE]
what was it he said again?
it mightn't even have been him!
[/QUOTE]
agree, someone give us a link