[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bitesthedust<br><h6> The QZ gentleman... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]WhatMustHeThink wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bitesthedust<br><h6> The QZ gentleman... wrote: [/QUOTENAME] A series of 1970's shows would be greatly appreciated by most fans I'm sure, who would rather listen to It's Late and Liar than Radio Ga Ga and Tear It Up.
[/QUOTE]
*Dreams* That would be fucking great, it really would, but I dont think that an archivest gets any say over whats released, he just has to dig up the actual stuff I suppose. But that would be awesome, it really would. I havnt seen/heard It's Late live, that would make my day....[/QUOTE]
But Queen Productions and Greg Brooks obviously work together and must have an idea of what fans want...It's Late live is superb![/QUOTE]
Got any links to a video? Perdy please? :)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Greg - why don't you make better use of your time?
haven't you got some other great stories that you could add "the Greg Brooks Accuracy Touch" to?
Expect to see in the next six months...some "much more historically accurate re-writes"
THE BIBLE: Jesus live to be a very, very old man who died in a terrible car accident aged 2048.
WORLD WAR II: Hitler won, and Winston & Mrs Chruchill are found dead in a bunker just outside Harlow, having eaten themselves to death on on 35,000 Bourbon Biscuits and 300 lbs of Rapsberry Blancmange.
JAWS: A small costal resort is being terrorised by marauding mallards until a passing kindly great white shark sees off the bothersome birds. The townfolk show their immeasurable grattitude by feeding "sharky" any passing vagrants that stumble into town.
haven't you got some other great stories that you could add "the Greg Brooks Accuracy Touch" to?
Expect to see in the next six months...some "much more historically accurate re-writes"
THE BIBLE: Jesus live to be a very, very old man who died in a terrible car accident aged 2048.
WORLD WAR II: Hitler won, and Winston & Mrs Chruchill are found dead in a bunker just outside Harlow, having eaten themselves to death on on 35,000 Bourbon Biscuits and 300 lbs of Rapsberry Blancmange.
JAWS: A small costal resort is being terrorised by marauding mallards until a passing kindly great white shark sees off the bothersome birds. The townfolk show their immeasurable grattitude by feeding "sharky" any passing vagrants that stumble into town.
lol like i said before..... Are you enjoying your 14 hour day? lol
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]WhatMustHeThink wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bitesthedust<br><h6> The QZ gentleman... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]WhatMustHeThink wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bitesthedust<br><h6> The QZ gentleman... wrote: [/QUOTENAME] A series of 1970's shows would be greatly appreciated by most fans I'm sure, who would rather listen to It's Late and Liar than Radio Ga Ga and Tear It Up.
[/QUOTE]
*Dreams* That would be fucking great, it really would, but I dont think that an archivest gets any say over whats released, he just has to dig up the actual stuff I suppose. But that would be awesome, it really would. I havnt seen/heard It's Late live, that would make my day....[/QUOTE]
But Queen Productions and Greg Brooks obviously work together and must have an idea of what fans want...It's Late live is superb![/QUOTE]
Got any links to a video? Perdy please? :)[/QUOTE]
I wish I had a video of It's Late. But search for a News Of The World/Jazz/Live Killers audio show here, it'll be there.
[/QUOTE]
*Dreams* That would be fucking great, it really would, but I dont think that an archivest gets any say over whats released, he just has to dig up the actual stuff I suppose. But that would be awesome, it really would. I havnt seen/heard It's Late live, that would make my day....[/QUOTE]
But Queen Productions and Greg Brooks obviously work together and must have an idea of what fans want...It's Late live is superb![/QUOTE]
Got any links to a video? Perdy please? :)[/QUOTE]
I wish I had a video of It's Late. But search for a News Of The World/Jazz/Live Killers audio show here, it'll be there.
I can't help finding myself agreeing with much of what Mr Brooks has to say about people on this forum, there's a lot of people who have a rather over-inflated view of your own importance in the grand scheme of things and who think its ok to sling insults around and be rude without any comeback.
All this talk of giving the fans "what they want" and "no more compilation albums please" Firstly, just how many "fans" are we talking about when these dictations about "what the fans want" get bandied about? There is how many people angrily posting about such things on here compared with how many people in the world that buy Queen music? and secondly - if you don't like the compilation albums, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to go down the shops and buy them, if you don't want, don't get, simple really :o)
Plus all this negativity about Greg's book... I mean really, why? it's a book for crying out loud! is it really worth getting that wound up over the order of songs played at some show or other that you probably didn't see, over twenty years ago. I've got a copy of the book, its an interesting enough read to dip in and out of, if I spotted any errors I'd be inclined to write to the writer, point out what's good about it and follow with what I think needs changing to improve it, to diss it as utter crap because of a few errors here or there seems a bit overly negative and a bit sad really....
The one thing we're all waiting for, is peace on earth and an end to war, it's a miracle we need the miracle...
Its a shame so many "fans" haven't listened to that so closely....
As Mr Brooks says, chill people :o)
All this talk of giving the fans "what they want" and "no more compilation albums please" Firstly, just how many "fans" are we talking about when these dictations about "what the fans want" get bandied about? There is how many people angrily posting about such things on here compared with how many people in the world that buy Queen music? and secondly - if you don't like the compilation albums, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to go down the shops and buy them, if you don't want, don't get, simple really :o)
Plus all this negativity about Greg's book... I mean really, why? it's a book for crying out loud! is it really worth getting that wound up over the order of songs played at some show or other that you probably didn't see, over twenty years ago. I've got a copy of the book, its an interesting enough read to dip in and out of, if I spotted any errors I'd be inclined to write to the writer, point out what's good about it and follow with what I think needs changing to improve it, to diss it as utter crap because of a few errors here or there seems a bit overly negative and a bit sad really....
The one thing we're all waiting for, is peace on earth and an end to war, it's a miracle we need the miracle...
Its a shame so many "fans" haven't listened to that so closely....
As Mr Brooks says, chill people :o)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crockerdile wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Plus all this negativity about Greg's book... I mean really, why? it's a book for crying out loud! is it really worth getting that wound up over the order of songs played at some show or other that you probably didn't see, over twenty years ago. I've got a copy of the book, its an interesting enough read to dip in and out of, if I spotted any errors I'd be inclined to write to the writer, point out what's good about it and follow with what I think needs changing to improve it, to diss it as utter crap because of a few errors here or there seems a bit overly negative and a bit sad really....[/QUOTE]
So, it doesn't bother you in the least that the official Queen archivist's new book, with the help of Queen's audio/video vaults, still has 500+ errors?
Considering the material and connections he has, his book should be nothing short of perfect. It should have been the comprehensive guide to Queen live. Instead, we have amateur and dedicated fans with websites that can offer so much more.
So, it doesn't bother you in the least that the official Queen archivist's new book, with the help of Queen's audio/video vaults, still has 500+ errors?
Considering the material and connections he has, his book should be nothing short of perfect. It should have been the comprehensive guide to Queen live. Instead, we have amateur and dedicated fans with websites that can offer so much more.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, it doesn't bother you in the least that the official Queen archivist's new book, with the help of Queen's audio/video vaults, still has 500+ errors?
Considering the material and connections he has, his book should be nothing short of perfect. It should have been the comprehensive guide to Queen live. Instead, we have amateur and dedicated fans with websites that can offer so much more.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, interesting question, does it "bother" me? Well, not amazingly no! it cost £7.95 and gives a nice flavour of the history of Queen's live work, a bit of narrative, some nice pictures, can't complain too loudly :o)
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going!
Perhaps if these errors with the evidence to back them up got reported back in a constructive manner you'd have something better brought out in future.
But really, unless someone reckons they could write a better book from scratch and guarantee it will be 100% accurate, I don't think their in a position to go off on one about how awful they think it is.
You'll find errors in any book about anything old chap, we're all human, we make mistakes... you'll not find anyone on this planet who hasn't :o)
Considering the material and connections he has, his book should be nothing short of perfect. It should have been the comprehensive guide to Queen live. Instead, we have amateur and dedicated fans with websites that can offer so much more.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, interesting question, does it "bother" me? Well, not amazingly no! it cost £7.95 and gives a nice flavour of the history of Queen's live work, a bit of narrative, some nice pictures, can't complain too loudly :o)
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going!
Perhaps if these errors with the evidence to back them up got reported back in a constructive manner you'd have something better brought out in future.
But really, unless someone reckons they could write a better book from scratch and guarantee it will be 100% accurate, I don't think their in a position to go off on one about how awful they think it is.
You'll find errors in any book about anything old chap, we're all human, we make mistakes... you'll not find anyone on this planet who hasn't :o)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crockerdile wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hmmm, interesting question, does it "bother" me? Well, not amazingly no! it cost £7.95 and gives a nice flavour of the history of Queen's live work, a bit of narrative, some nice pictures, can't complain too loudly :o)
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going![/QUOTE]
If we don't count the appendicies, it runs to 243 pages - two to three errors per page. That's not good.
[QUOTE]Perhaps if these errors with the evidence to back them up got reported back in a constructive manner you'd have something better brought out in future.[/QUOTE]
How do you know they weren't constructive? Greg had asked for people to submit corrections when he was going to update the book, and Sir GH submitted a LOT of corrections, only a handful of which were used.
[QUOTE]But really, unless someone reckons they could write a better book from scratch and guarantee it will be 100% accurate, I don't think their in a position to go off on one about how awful they think it is.[/QUOTE]
Yes they are, especially when the promise was that the book was 99% accurate as opposed to the previous 90% accurate. Considering Sir GH and myself are working on books of our own, I think we are in a position to go off on a book. However, despite its errors, I will admit that Greg's book is a nice reference, though Queenconcerts.com is an even better resource.
I appreciate the diplomacy and good-natured attitude of your post, because there's no sense in slinging shit anymore. My own personal interest has waned considerably, though I would be all for a serious discussion if Mr Brooks was up for it too. Seeing as all he's done is sling shit since his appearance on this board a few days ago, then I get the impression he's not capable of handling a serious discussion.
However, Crockerdile, I haven't seen your name around here before, and I'm not sure if you're new here or if you were just a registered lurker, but Greg's reputation on this board dipped considerably after another childish outburst a few years ago (probably around 2004). Somewhere else, someone has linked to his posts, and they were very pathetic on his part, so I can say that most of the words of criticism are justified - at least, the well-constructed criticism. While some people are happy with stirring the shit up again and slinging insults back, some of the other posters are trying to be kind to Greg and justify the criticsm - yet he has no interest in responding to those people. Once he shows basic skills in human decency, then he will be treated with respect and I'm sure that people would love to converse with him. I'm not holding my breath, though, as he's already stated that his intent was to light the fire and run.
For those of you who keep asking "I wonder if Brian knows about Greg's behavior", put your money where your mouth is and email Brian with Greg's abusive posts. Let him know your outrage. But for God's sake, Greg is just another troll - if all you're going to do is hurl more abuse, then don't bother replying, it won't solve anything.
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going![/QUOTE]
If we don't count the appendicies, it runs to 243 pages - two to three errors per page. That's not good.
[QUOTE]Perhaps if these errors with the evidence to back them up got reported back in a constructive manner you'd have something better brought out in future.[/QUOTE]
How do you know they weren't constructive? Greg had asked for people to submit corrections when he was going to update the book, and Sir GH submitted a LOT of corrections, only a handful of which were used.
[QUOTE]But really, unless someone reckons they could write a better book from scratch and guarantee it will be 100% accurate, I don't think their in a position to go off on one about how awful they think it is.[/QUOTE]
Yes they are, especially when the promise was that the book was 99% accurate as opposed to the previous 90% accurate. Considering Sir GH and myself are working on books of our own, I think we are in a position to go off on a book. However, despite its errors, I will admit that Greg's book is a nice reference, though Queenconcerts.com is an even better resource.
I appreciate the diplomacy and good-natured attitude of your post, because there's no sense in slinging shit anymore. My own personal interest has waned considerably, though I would be all for a serious discussion if Mr Brooks was up for it too. Seeing as all he's done is sling shit since his appearance on this board a few days ago, then I get the impression he's not capable of handling a serious discussion.
However, Crockerdile, I haven't seen your name around here before, and I'm not sure if you're new here or if you were just a registered lurker, but Greg's reputation on this board dipped considerably after another childish outburst a few years ago (probably around 2004). Somewhere else, someone has linked to his posts, and they were very pathetic on his part, so I can say that most of the words of criticism are justified - at least, the well-constructed criticism. While some people are happy with stirring the shit up again and slinging insults back, some of the other posters are trying to be kind to Greg and justify the criticsm - yet he has no interest in responding to those people. Once he shows basic skills in human decency, then he will be treated with respect and I'm sure that people would love to converse with him. I'm not holding my breath, though, as he's already stated that his intent was to light the fire and run.
For those of you who keep asking "I wonder if Brian knows about Greg's behavior", put your money where your mouth is and email Brian with Greg's abusive posts. Let him know your outrage. But for God's sake, Greg is just another troll - if all you're going to do is hurl more abuse, then don't bother replying, it won't solve anything.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crockerdile wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going!
[/QUOTE]
To follow that example, if I made that many errors in my own writing, I would be fired and never find another job in my field. The purpose of any reseach is to minimize errors as much as possible in order to create accuracy.
The issue is not that errors were made in the first place, but that they were never corrected even following outside help. When Queen Live was published in the mid-90s, it was a great book, however flawed. Now, individual traders and experts have created a much more accurate database which, apparently, was never utilized fully in the revised edition. Even though outside opinion was asked for and received by GB, many mistakes are still evident in the book. As I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to hear GB's take on this.
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going!
[/QUOTE]
To follow that example, if I made that many errors in my own writing, I would be fired and never find another job in my field. The purpose of any reseach is to minimize errors as much as possible in order to create accuracy.
The issue is not that errors were made in the first place, but that they were never corrected even following outside help. When Queen Live was published in the mid-90s, it was a great book, however flawed. Now, individual traders and experts have created a much more accurate database which, apparently, was never utilized fully in the revised edition. Even though outside opinion was asked for and received by GB, many mistakes are still evident in the book. As I mentioned in another thread, I'd love to hear GB's take on this.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME]However, Crockerdile, I haven't seen your name around here before, and I'm not sure if you're new here or if you were just a registered lurker, but Greg's reputation on this board dipped considerably after another childish outburst a few years ago (probably around 2004). Somewhere else, someone has linked to his posts, and they were very pathetic on his part, so I can say that most of the words of criticism are justified.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's always two sides to any story, seems this all looks like a bit of pointless little war either way with too many ego's being egged on into reacting in stupid ways...
I see a certain amount of sense in what both he and you guys are saying, strikes that a bit of calming down and mutual respect type stuff ought to happen really... build up positive relationships rather just have constant detrimental pops at each other....
You guessed right too, guess I'm what you'd call a registered lurker, I like to dip into this place to get a flavour of opinions on the latest Queen news and check out anything interesting that's cropped up in here... but as far as actively contributing, I don't know... the amount of bitchiness and sniping that goes on... really puts one off engaging in things, compared with the atmosphere in a couple of other band bulletin boards I'm part of its really pretty hostile in here... I know there's good people in here, but there's some pretty awful people too! I'm pretty sure if I asked say a simple question in this place that a lot of people already know the answer to, some would give you a good answer and others would have a cheap dig at you for your "inferior" level of knowledge to them...
Maybe, or maybe not... do you think that's a likely hypothetical scenario?
Well, there's always two sides to any story, seems this all looks like a bit of pointless little war either way with too many ego's being egged on into reacting in stupid ways...
I see a certain amount of sense in what both he and you guys are saying, strikes that a bit of calming down and mutual respect type stuff ought to happen really... build up positive relationships rather just have constant detrimental pops at each other....
You guessed right too, guess I'm what you'd call a registered lurker, I like to dip into this place to get a flavour of opinions on the latest Queen news and check out anything interesting that's cropped up in here... but as far as actively contributing, I don't know... the amount of bitchiness and sniping that goes on... really puts one off engaging in things, compared with the atmosphere in a couple of other band bulletin boards I'm part of its really pretty hostile in here... I know there's good people in here, but there's some pretty awful people too! I'm pretty sure if I asked say a simple question in this place that a lot of people already know the answer to, some would give you a good answer and others would have a cheap dig at you for your "inferior" level of knowledge to them...
Maybe, or maybe not... do you think that's a likely hypothetical scenario?
Absolutely, and I'm sure that I would be one of the individuals who would give a sarcastic answer. However, it all depends on how a person presents him or herself on the forum, and I think this is true of any messageboard. Queenzone has seen its fair share of idiots polluting the board with inane questions that it becomes almost second nature to become snippy; when a good person comes along who genuinely doesn't know something and presents him or herself in a halfway decent manner, they may get some snippy replies but there's a good chance it will be answered seriously.
That's the difference between the Serious and General Discussion portions of this board: the General Discussion forum seems to be a bunch of sexually frustrated obsessive fans climaxing over pictures of Freddie and placing "the boys" in disturbing scenarios involving handcuffs and circumcision (actually, I try to stay away from that board), while the Serious Discussion is just that. I think the attitude here is the same as it is on any board, except QOL: I do venture over there occasionally because sometimes I need a break from the idiots, and while the people there seem genuinely nice and helpful, sometimes they are not so willing to discuss things. How fun is it to read a thread on, say, filler tracks on Queen's albums if every response is, "All of Queen's albums are brilliant and you're bastards if you think otherwise!"
Queenzone is a treasure trove of intelligent people and intelligent thought, once you get past all the idiots. And thankfully, there are more intelligent people than idiots here.
That's the difference between the Serious and General Discussion portions of this board: the General Discussion forum seems to be a bunch of sexually frustrated obsessive fans climaxing over pictures of Freddie and placing "the boys" in disturbing scenarios involving handcuffs and circumcision (actually, I try to stay away from that board), while the Serious Discussion is just that. I think the attitude here is the same as it is on any board, except QOL: I do venture over there occasionally because sometimes I need a break from the idiots, and while the people there seem genuinely nice and helpful, sometimes they are not so willing to discuss things. How fun is it to read a thread on, say, filler tracks on Queen's albums if every response is, "All of Queen's albums are brilliant and you're bastards if you think otherwise!"
Queenzone is a treasure trove of intelligent people and intelligent thought, once you get past all the idiots. And thankfully, there are more intelligent people than idiots here.
Greg, a moment please, trust me, anything solan says is a LIE. he picks on me for having left for so many times and in addition he must have never read "Everybody Poops" because he hates my name too. i support what you are doing and would gladly like to help. so here is what i know.
Crazy Little Thing Called Love #1 Single on USA charts
Bohemian Rhapsody Waynes World/Innuendo rerelase #1 USA
sorry i can not be of more help
Crazy Little Thing Called Love #1 Single on USA charts
Bohemian Rhapsody Waynes World/Innuendo rerelase #1 USA
sorry i can not be of more help
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Crockerdile wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, it doesn't bother you in the least that the official Queen archivist's new book, with the help of Queen's audio/video vaults, still has 500+ errors?
.[/QUOTE]
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going!
Perhaps if these errors with the evidence to back them up got reported back in a constructive manner you'd have something better brought out in future.
But really, unless someone reckons they could write a better book from scratch and guarantee it will be 100% accurate, I don't think their in a position to go off on one about how awful they think it is.
:o)[/QUOTE]
two errors per page? - some pages are mainly pictures
it's supposed to be a factual account - not conjecture
some of the errors are so very obviously wrong
go to martin scully's page and see how it should be done
...would you be happy if you bought a Car Repair manual for a Ford Mustang and found out the content was for a VW Beetle?
.[/QUOTE]
500+ errors you say, lets see, it runs to 293 pages, taking your word for it that's less than a couple of errors per page and given the sheer wealth of information on each page, that's not bad going!
Perhaps if these errors with the evidence to back them up got reported back in a constructive manner you'd have something better brought out in future.
But really, unless someone reckons they could write a better book from scratch and guarantee it will be 100% accurate, I don't think their in a position to go off on one about how awful they think it is.
:o)[/QUOTE]
two errors per page? - some pages are mainly pictures
it's supposed to be a factual account - not conjecture
some of the errors are so very obviously wrong
go to martin scully's page and see how it should be done
...would you be happy if you bought a Car Repair manual for a Ford Mustang and found out the content was for a VW Beetle?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]...would you be happy if you bought a Car Repair manual for a Ford Mustang and found out the content was for a VW Beetle?[/QUOTE]
If the instructions contained therein allowed me to transform my VW Beetle into a Ford Mustang, hell yeah!... More usefully for me at the moment though, if you can source a book that turns a Nissan Micra into a Ford Mustang, please let me know :o)
Actually Lester - I like your points, I think you've pursuaded me to roll the ole sleeves up and muck in a bit more here, this could be fun ;o)
If the instructions contained therein allowed me to transform my VW Beetle into a Ford Mustang, hell yeah!... More usefully for me at the moment though, if you can source a book that turns a Nissan Micra into a Ford Mustang, please let me know :o)
Actually Lester - I like your points, I think you've pursuaded me to roll the ole sleeves up and muck in a bit more here, this could be fun ;o)
Actually, GB gave us a Ford Pinto, a fine autombile that was over 99.9% safe. On the other hand, calling GB's book a Ford Pinto, maybe an insult to the Ford Pinto, as the Ford Pinto had much fewer defects than GB's "carefully" researched book.