to greg
I am a 17 year old queen fan from australia and i recently purchased your book. I found it very informative and above all interesting. I have always wanted a book like this for Queen and I am grateful i found it, so thankyou for putting in the obvious amount hard work into it and making it the great publication for queen fans it is.
liam
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Indeed, the noble Serry made a point.
People give up their money and their trust when they buy books, music, novelty condoms etc.
You accept money for these things - it therefore becomes your responsibility to make the best product you can; and it's also your fault if people aren't happy with it.
Indeed, most of us haven't written a book about Queen Live. Fair crack of the whip.
But - what the fuck does that matter? Does it make an existing book any better, just because others haven't been written yet?
Yours is a most shoddy defense Mr. Brooks. It says a lot about "Queen" if they're willing to let *you* be the person who does most of the official yapping on this forum.
People give up their money and their trust when they buy books, music, novelty condoms etc.
You accept money for these things - it therefore becomes your responsibility to make the best product you can; and it's also your fault if people aren't happy with it.
Indeed, most of us haven't written a book about Queen Live. Fair crack of the whip.
But - what the fuck does that matter? Does it make an existing book any better, just because others haven't been written yet?
Yours is a most shoddy defense Mr. Brooks. It says a lot about "Queen" if they're willing to let *you* be the person who does most of the official yapping on this forum.
property of Queen Productions! :/
can i just add taht your "before the internet existed" comment is another wholly innacurate statement.....you said you started the book in 89...i had an internet account in the UK in 87....also....other parts of the world had internet accounts before us...but hey, nevermind...it's not like you make so many mistakes that anyone will notice....
and the whole tone of your original post...along with many other nEW THREADS you have started in recent months in very conforntational...don't sling mud/throw stones/or kettle calling...before your own house is in order
and the whole tone of your original post...along with many other nEW THREADS you have started in recent months in very conforntational...don't sling mud/throw stones/or kettle calling...before your own house is in order
To Liam...
Thank you. Your words are much apppreciated.
GB
*******
to greg
I am a 17 year old queen fan from australia and i recently purchased your book. I found it very informative and above all interesting. I have always wanted a book like this for Queen and I am grateful i found it, so thankyou for putting in the obvious amount hard work into it and making it the great publication for queen fans it is.
liam
Thank you. Your words are much apppreciated.
GB
*******
to greg
I am a 17 year old queen fan from australia and i recently purchased your book. I found it very informative and above all interesting. I have always wanted a book like this for Queen and I am grateful i found it, so thankyou for putting in the obvious amount hard work into it and making it the great publication for queen fans it is.
liam
To Zebonka.
ARE YOU going to do exactly what I suggest in my Challenge??
ARE YOU going to prove how little you know, or how much??
Are you, Zebonka??? No, of course not. You don't know enough to disprove me, or confirm me. You just MOAN and TALK a lot.
Don't dodge the issue. GET TO WORK, do as I suggest instead of complaining.
YOU CAN'T, can you?
NO-ONE HERE ON QUEENZONE HAS DONE ANYTHING AT ALL YET, AND IT IS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT PUT A LIST OF ALL THE QUEEN 1970's gigs ("half of which are wrong" according to you) BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOME OF IT WILL BE WRONG TOO. AND THEN YOU'LL BE EXPOSED.
ALL YOU CAN DO IS COPY OTHERS WORK, PASTE IN DATA FROM ANOTHER SITE. YOU OFFER NOTHING ORIGINAL, NOTHING YOU RESEARCHED YOURSELF. SO STOP MOANING.
YOU ARE SCARED OF BEING SHOWN TO BE WRONG.
COME ON... READ MY CHALLENGE... ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BRAVE MOANZONE COMPLAINERS, AND PROVE ME WRONG.
I CANNOT BELIEVE IT: 2 PAGES ALREADY AND STILL NOT ONE OF YOU HAS DONE 1 THING TO DISPROVE ME.
ALL YOU'VE DONE IS COMPLAIN...... AGAIN
TRUE TO FORM, YOU LOAD OF GRUMBLING OLD WOMEN, WITHOUT ACTION.
WHERE ARE THE 'CORRECT' LISTINGS FOR THE 1970'S GIGS THEN? WHICH OF YOU WILL BE OFFERING THEM?
HOW BOUT YOU ZEBONKA? OR YOUNGS-SPRAT-MAN, OR TODD, OR THE-HERO, OR READIE-CODDIE?????
ANY OF YOU... DO SOMETHING. DO EVEN ONE OF THINGS IN MY CHALLENGE.
ALL MOUTH AND NO ACTION.
ARE YOU going to do exactly what I suggest in my Challenge??
ARE YOU going to prove how little you know, or how much??
Are you, Zebonka??? No, of course not. You don't know enough to disprove me, or confirm me. You just MOAN and TALK a lot.
Don't dodge the issue. GET TO WORK, do as I suggest instead of complaining.
YOU CAN'T, can you?
NO-ONE HERE ON QUEENZONE HAS DONE ANYTHING AT ALL YET, AND IT IS BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT PUT A LIST OF ALL THE QUEEN 1970's gigs ("half of which are wrong" according to you) BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOME OF IT WILL BE WRONG TOO. AND THEN YOU'LL BE EXPOSED.
ALL YOU CAN DO IS COPY OTHERS WORK, PASTE IN DATA FROM ANOTHER SITE. YOU OFFER NOTHING ORIGINAL, NOTHING YOU RESEARCHED YOURSELF. SO STOP MOANING.
YOU ARE SCARED OF BEING SHOWN TO BE WRONG.
COME ON... READ MY CHALLENGE... ANY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BRAVE MOANZONE COMPLAINERS, AND PROVE ME WRONG.
I CANNOT BELIEVE IT: 2 PAGES ALREADY AND STILL NOT ONE OF YOU HAS DONE 1 THING TO DISPROVE ME.
ALL YOU'VE DONE IS COMPLAIN...... AGAIN
TRUE TO FORM, YOU LOAD OF GRUMBLING OLD WOMEN, WITHOUT ACTION.
WHERE ARE THE 'CORRECT' LISTINGS FOR THE 1970'S GIGS THEN? WHICH OF YOU WILL BE OFFERING THEM?
HOW BOUT YOU ZEBONKA? OR YOUNGS-SPRAT-MAN, OR TODD, OR THE-HERO, OR READIE-CODDIE?????
ANY OF YOU... DO SOMETHING. DO EVEN ONE OF THINGS IN MY CHALLENGE.
ALL MOUTH AND NO ACTION.
I GUESS GREG MUST BE ON HOLIDAY THIS WEEK!
LET'S ALL SCREAM AND SHOUT LIKE GREG!
IT GETS MUCH MORE ATTENTION THAT WAY AND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE REALLY REALLY SERIOUS!
LET'S ALL SCREAM AND SHOUT LIKE GREG!
IT GETS MUCH MORE ATTENTION THAT WAY AND IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE REALLY REALLY SERIOUS!
I'm thinking about writing a book of childish insults and useless banter called GREG BROOKISMS... but I seemed to have misplaced my Crayolas.
or maybe another title:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
ALL MOUTH AND NO ACTION.
[/QUOTE]
But that sounds like something in my video collection.
or maybe another title:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
ALL MOUTH AND NO ACTION.
[/QUOTE]
But that sounds like something in my video collection.
Mr. Brooks (if you'd prefer I call you that)... I don't believe I criticised your book. You have absolutely no cause to be so friggin' uppity with me!
I was being reasonable, absolutely reasonable. People who give you money for writing a book put you in the position you're in. It is their right to criticise your work - it's your right to either ignore them, or do better next time. Heck, it's your right to act like an idiot on the internet too, but you're above that obviously.
I tell you this - you give me the information (hyuk hyuk) and I'll write the book because I'm a frigging excellent writer when the mood takes me.
For the moment, can you please quit being such a dufus? It's unbecoming of someone who wrote such a fantastic book.
I was being reasonable, absolutely reasonable. People who give you money for writing a book put you in the position you're in. It is their right to criticise your work - it's your right to either ignore them, or do better next time. Heck, it's your right to act like an idiot on the internet too, but you're above that obviously.
I tell you this - you give me the information (hyuk hyuk) and I'll write the book because I'm a frigging excellent writer when the mood takes me.
For the moment, can you please quit being such a dufus? It's unbecoming of someone who wrote such a fantastic book.
Oh dear. Here's a no-win situation.
Greg's original post was almost entirely fair - it's all well and good to allege that something is wrong, it's much harder to prove what the correct information is, especially if one continues to employ the (perfectly reasonable) restriction that anything alleged must be corroborated.
That said, *most* of the criticism of the book that I recall seeing related to the second edition, which many people not yet fortunate enough to inspect the archive assume would be almost pinpoint in it's archive given Greg's change in access since writing the first book.
Also, most of the specific "errors" I recall seeing related to concerts that are in the public domain, which really brings me to my contribution to what we could laughably call a discussion...
"does a recording of the concert count as corroboration of songs played, and, assuming that there are not multiple fade-outs, even the sequence in which they were played?"
Greg's original post was almost entirely fair - it's all well and good to allege that something is wrong, it's much harder to prove what the correct information is, especially if one continues to employ the (perfectly reasonable) restriction that anything alleged must be corroborated.
That said, *most* of the criticism of the book that I recall seeing related to the second edition, which many people not yet fortunate enough to inspect the archive assume would be almost pinpoint in it's archive given Greg's change in access since writing the first book.
Also, most of the specific "errors" I recall seeing related to concerts that are in the public domain, which really brings me to my contribution to what we could laughably call a discussion...
"does a recording of the concert count as corroboration of songs played, and, assuming that there are not multiple fade-outs, even the sequence in which they were played?"
To Greg, i bought Queen Live book quite a while ago, maybe 1998 or 1999. i thought it was really good and very informative and no i could not do any better. Maybe it isn't 100% accurate but i see what a hard task it is to try to compile. Don't like the picture on the cover though! got to be better than that out there hey! i liked your book anyway.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Oh dear. Here's a no-win situation.
Greg's original post was almost entirely fair - it's all well and good to allege that something is wrong, it's much harder to prove what the correct information is, especially if one continues to employ the (perfectly reasonable) restriction that anything alleged must be corroborated.
That said, *most* of the criticism of the book that I recall seeing related to the second edition, which many people not yet fortunate enough to inspect the archive assume would be almost pinpoint in it's archive given Greg's change in access since writing the first book.
Also, most of the specific "errors" I recall seeing related to concerts that are in the public domain, which really brings me to my contribution to what we could laughably call a discussion...
"does a recording of the concert count as corroboration of songs played, and, assuming that there are not multiple fade-outs, even the sequence in which they were played?"
[/QUOTE]
One of the most sensible posts throughout this entire thing....
Greg's original post was almost entirely fair - it's all well and good to allege that something is wrong, it's much harder to prove what the correct information is, especially if one continues to employ the (perfectly reasonable) restriction that anything alleged must be corroborated.
That said, *most* of the criticism of the book that I recall seeing related to the second edition, which many people not yet fortunate enough to inspect the archive assume would be almost pinpoint in it's archive given Greg's change in access since writing the first book.
Also, most of the specific "errors" I recall seeing related to concerts that are in the public domain, which really brings me to my contribution to what we could laughably call a discussion...
"does a recording of the concert count as corroboration of songs played, and, assuming that there are not multiple fade-outs, even the sequence in which they were played?"
[/QUOTE]
One of the most sensible posts throughout this entire thing....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To the-hero.
I know about Queenconcerts.com I call it a brilliant site in my challenge, above, so very obviously I have visited it and read it. If you'd read it properly you might have offerred something usefiul instead of your usual ill-informed rubbish
You are such afirst division TWAT.
It is people precisely like you, a minority, that give the serious and intelligent QZ-ers a bad name.
Read the above again and offer something useful about Queen Live.
CAN YOU DO THAT? something of your own I mean?
[/QUOTE]
Mr Queen Archivist,
With regards to Queen Concerts.com - it's a pity that you didn't use that to correct certain setlists in the re-release of your Queen Live book...like Golders Green 1973.
For those concerts that are extremely rare (e.g. Cambridge 1974) we rely on your information and therefore that cannot be disproven. My point is that for those shows that we fans do know about, like Golders Green it is a pity that that information was not displayed correctly.
I know about Queenconcerts.com I call it a brilliant site in my challenge, above, so very obviously I have visited it and read it. If you'd read it properly you might have offerred something usefiul instead of your usual ill-informed rubbish
You are such afirst division TWAT.
It is people precisely like you, a minority, that give the serious and intelligent QZ-ers a bad name.
Read the above again and offer something useful about Queen Live.
CAN YOU DO THAT? something of your own I mean?
[/QUOTE]
Mr Queen Archivist,
With regards to Queen Concerts.com - it's a pity that you didn't use that to correct certain setlists in the re-release of your Queen Live book...like Golders Green 1973.
For those concerts that are extremely rare (e.g. Cambridge 1974) we rely on your information and therefore that cannot be disproven. My point is that for those shows that we fans do know about, like Golders Green it is a pity that that information was not displayed correctly.
The discussion would be better if certain people stopped using CAPS LOCK and writing extremely long posts. Seriously.
And indeed - some setlists are so obvious and well known (HamOdeon 75 or Golders Green 73 for example) that it's weird that Queen Live got that wrong.
And indeed - some setlists are so obvious and well known (HamOdeon 75 or Golders Green 73 for example) that it's weird that Queen Live got that wrong.
Greg,
This is a reasonable challenge, but it's impossible. The only true proof of a setlist for us is a recording. A printed setlist used by the band may not have been adhered to during the concert, so a recording is the one sure thing. Since there are about 300 bootlegs, that leaves about 400 concerts without a confirmed setlist - and most of those 400 are from 1980 and earlier. You have access to some soundboard recordings (like LA 77 and a lot of 1979 shows) that helped you out, but that stuff is unavailable people like myself. Brian once said they recorded every show from 75 or 76 onward, and the band would listen to the recording on the way back to the hotel in the limo. Do these recordings still exist, and do you have access to them?
I'd love to help correct you, but you're not going to find better tracklistings than are currently available at queenconcerts.com. The only time they will be updated is when more bootlegs emerge. Until then, there will unfortunately be a ton of blanks from 1971-1980.
This is a reasonable challenge, but it's impossible. The only true proof of a setlist for us is a recording. A printed setlist used by the band may not have been adhered to during the concert, so a recording is the one sure thing. Since there are about 300 bootlegs, that leaves about 400 concerts without a confirmed setlist - and most of those 400 are from 1980 and earlier. You have access to some soundboard recordings (like LA 77 and a lot of 1979 shows) that helped you out, but that stuff is unavailable people like myself. Brian once said they recorded every show from 75 or 76 onward, and the band would listen to the recording on the way back to the hotel in the limo. Do these recordings still exist, and do you have access to them?
I'd love to help correct you, but you're not going to find better tracklistings than are currently available at queenconcerts.com. The only time they will be updated is when more bootlegs emerge. Until then, there will unfortunately be a ton of blanks from 1971-1980.