You know what REALLY scares me?
If ANYONE wants to look for anything in those archives, they are going to be SO fucked up...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The biggest problem for any independent author is the restriction of access to any of the surviving Queen band members - and the referral (or deferral) of all things Queen to Greg.
This is very bad practice as any intellectual discussion can not be restricted to a single solitary source. For example, Greg recently wrote in here that ‘…no Bohemian Rhapsody video out-takes exist…’ However, although I do not own these, I have viewed them, and they are in the possession of a collector whom I nick-name the ‘anti-Greg’. (My apologies if he actually sees this – but it is meant as a term of respect and ‘affection').
This now creates two separate problems:
First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay.
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.
Unfortunately, for the likes of myself, Bob, Lester and others, the ‘challenge’ from Greg to produce ‘something’ is rather hollow, considering that he is the only gateway to official sources, so unless there is someway to circumvent his involvement, (which there isn’t because of his official status), it is impossible to create something fresh and unique because the tools to do so – do not exist.
Finally, even if these obstacles were surmountable, once the product was out there, it would not be viewed as a heavyweight of academic research, but, like the Queen entries in ‘Wikipedia’, perceived with both derision and suspicion.
And while it could be argued that this is the case for all ‘unofficial’ materials, for all bands or celebrities, at least Paul MacCartney, Robert Plant, Alex Ferguson, or whoever, are willing to talk to alternative journalistic sources, so there is far more opportunity to produce something both unique and entertaining.
That is one reason why I prefer being in here - instead of 'the printed word'.
As a lazy sod, perhaps after my death, some enterprising soul could collect my 'Record Collector' features and my Queenzone threads and replies (there are quite a few over on Queenonline also), as I guess there is as much info there as to rival anthing Greg has done so far...
This is very bad practice as any intellectual discussion can not be restricted to a single solitary source. For example, Greg recently wrote in here that ‘…no Bohemian Rhapsody video out-takes exist…’ However, although I do not own these, I have viewed them, and they are in the possession of a collector whom I nick-name the ‘anti-Greg’. (My apologies if he actually sees this – but it is meant as a term of respect and ‘affection').
This now creates two separate problems:
First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay.
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.
Unfortunately, for the likes of myself, Bob, Lester and others, the ‘challenge’ from Greg to produce ‘something’ is rather hollow, considering that he is the only gateway to official sources, so unless there is someway to circumvent his involvement, (which there isn’t because of his official status), it is impossible to create something fresh and unique because the tools to do so – do not exist.
Finally, even if these obstacles were surmountable, once the product was out there, it would not be viewed as a heavyweight of academic research, but, like the Queen entries in ‘Wikipedia’, perceived with both derision and suspicion.
And while it could be argued that this is the case for all ‘unofficial’ materials, for all bands or celebrities, at least Paul MacCartney, Robert Plant, Alex Ferguson, or whoever, are willing to talk to alternative journalistic sources, so there is far more opportunity to produce something both unique and entertaining.
That is one reason why I prefer being in here - instead of 'the printed word'.
As a lazy sod, perhaps after my death, some enterprising soul could collect my 'Record Collector' features and my Queenzone threads and replies (there are quite a few over on Queenonline also), as I guess there is as much info there as to rival anthing Greg has done so far...
Greg was detained the other day after he was found slumped in his car with two empty bottles of oregano and a real sore throat. I'm filling in until he makes bail.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay.
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post, John. This is exactly the problem we face.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested.
Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I will have to start to seriously consider this. What can you suggest I do to research things from 1987 onward?
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post, John. This is exactly the problem we face.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested.
Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I will have to start to seriously consider this. What can you suggest I do to research things from 1987 onward?
His real name is Gregor Brookska, he is Russian and he was the righthand of Stalin.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay.
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post, John. This is exactly the problem we face.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested.
Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I will have to start to seriously consider this. What can you suggest I do to research things from 1987 onward?
[/QUOTE]
Well, the 'average' reader doesn't know who Greg Brooks is and will take his word as valuable as any other writer.
The 'special interest' reader (who is the kind of reader you are actually aiming at!) will know the situation round Greg Brooks and might even know who YOU are and/or where you come from.
I would NOT let this get in my way at any time.
====
And yes, I sincerely suggest you 'add' something new to the book by talking about everything post 1986. It will give your book that special purpose and something to differenciate it from anything that has already been written. Greg always says that it';s not worth writing anything unless it adds something significant to everyhting already out there. This is the chance AND the time, becuase you will be the first to print in book form all that happened after 1986.
Where to get the info?
You know enough people in the queenworld that will happily help you, and you know it. Besides, like you said, it's the best documented part of the entire queen history.
Think about it. DO IT I'd say! I'd be more then happy to help you and I think you know what I can mean for you in that! ;-)
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.[/QUOTE]
Excellent post, John. This is exactly the problem we face.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you don't, many people will view the book as a "he said, she said" situation and not be too interested.
Adding post-1986, be it solo/Cross/QPR, will help differentiate your book from the "official" Queen Live. If you are serious about getting it published, then I really think you need that added hook.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I will have to start to seriously consider this. What can you suggest I do to research things from 1987 onward?
[/QUOTE]
Well, the 'average' reader doesn't know who Greg Brooks is and will take his word as valuable as any other writer.
The 'special interest' reader (who is the kind of reader you are actually aiming at!) will know the situation round Greg Brooks and might even know who YOU are and/or where you come from.
I would NOT let this get in my way at any time.
====
And yes, I sincerely suggest you 'add' something new to the book by talking about everything post 1986. It will give your book that special purpose and something to differenciate it from anything that has already been written. Greg always says that it';s not worth writing anything unless it adds something significant to everyhting already out there. This is the chance AND the time, becuase you will be the first to print in book form all that happened after 1986.
Where to get the info?
You know enough people in the queenworld that will happily help you, and you know it. Besides, like you said, it's the best documented part of the entire queen history.
Think about it. DO IT I'd say! I'd be more then happy to help you and I think you know what I can mean for you in that! ;-)
Since I don't have to do any of the legwork.....
I think the complete concertography would be best. Martin has the best site around for most of that type of info, but I am always a fan of a good book over html. If you could add any of the flavor (more info on particular shows, etc) that Martin's site misses out on, that would be best.
But a complete post-1986, solos and all, concertography would be great.
And I disagree with Jeroen on this bit - you have to aim at the average reader (which is why "complete" gives you an edge), otherwise publishers wouldn't be that interested. People who would buy a Queen Live book are in the minority already (how many QZers own Greg's book now?), so why make it an even smaller pool?
I think the complete concertography would be best. Martin has the best site around for most of that type of info, but I am always a fan of a good book over html. If you could add any of the flavor (more info on particular shows, etc) that Martin's site misses out on, that would be best.
But a complete post-1986, solos and all, concertography would be great.
And I disagree with Jeroen on this bit - you have to aim at the average reader (which is why "complete" gives you an edge), otherwise publishers wouldn't be that interested. People who would buy a Queen Live book are in the minority already (how many QZers own Greg's book now?), so why make it an even smaller pool?
Speaking as someone who is about to have a book published, I feel like I should mention that my book does deal somewhat with the post-1986 concerts, but it's certainly not as comprehensive as it could be (I was rushed toward the end - six months really goes by...) and not as comprehensive as I would be interested in making it. In fact, Bob, I kind of left the live section of my book fairly generic in hopes of you coming along and writing a book that was more specific.
Looking forward to your book Lester, it will certianly be on my shopping list
Well, it would be a good idea if some of the most "informed" queen-zoners like J. Stuart, Lester, etc... would gather and write thier own book. At least an information book (deatiled discography, tourography, setlists, etc...) It could be a simple word, or pdf file, so that it could be always corrected and improved. Or a file like "Bijou". Instead of starting another boring thread "Queenzone vs. Greg Brooks"...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]First: The official denial, and as the contrary source is automatically rejected as illegitimate, it is reduced to no more than hearsay.
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.[/QUOTE]
Now that Greg has admitted he was aware of his book's errors from day one (while making yet another excuse about their existence), I can only say that this problem outlined by John will hopefully diminish over time.
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=901035
Second: As this information is unsubstantiated, (or indeed unsubstantiatable), the author is left without proof, and is viewed as contradicting ‘Official sources’, or worse still ‘a liar’, and without the permission of the ‘owner’ to publish, really has no other avenue of confirmation, so is left as they say, ‘p*ssing against the wind’.[/QUOTE]
Now that Greg has admitted he was aware of his book's errors from day one (while making yet another excuse about their existence), I can only say that this problem outlined by John will hopefully diminish over time.
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=901035
I'm interested in hearing what Jim Jenkins has to say about 'the archivist.' Hope I haven't missed anything. Any author can tell you -- it's the re-writing where talent comes out. Maybe Greg's book is in the category of "fairy tales that grow but never die" !