It was an heroic decision to play there. Nobody approves apartheid, but to say that artists who play there are suporting apartheid sound as an hypocrisy. I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules.
As it was proved by their South America tour, if the black community (in case they could) had hired Queen, they would certainly played there too!
And before Queen other artists have played there with appartheid. The difference was the UN script making the rule.
And these types of rules didn´t weacked the regime at all.
Take care
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I agree with both of you.
It's always nice when someone else explains yourself for you. ;)[/QUOTE]
LOL, I know the feeling!
It's always nice when someone else explains yourself for you. ;)[/QUOTE]
LOL, I know the feeling!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well hang on.... part of being an artist is commenting on things that worry us!! If the atom bomb isn't worth singing about, I don't know what is...
But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something.[/QUOTE]
Or go rant on your soapbox. Think there'll be any anti-fox hunting songs on the new album?
But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something.[/QUOTE]
Or go rant on your soapbox. Think there'll be any anti-fox hunting songs on the new album?
"Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?"
Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.
"I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules."
Wrong. Even Queen had to obey the decisions made by the British Musicians Union. They were lucky that they were not excluded and got away with paying a fine. There was nothing "heroic" in playing Sun City, it was a very unwise decision.
Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.
"I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules."
Wrong. Even Queen had to obey the decisions made by the British Musicians Union. They were lucky that they were not excluded and got away with paying a fine. There was nothing "heroic" in playing Sun City, it was a very unwise decision.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"You had Pink Floyd writing songs about the Falklands War and Leonid Brezhnev, U2 were writing about atomic boms and Metallica wrote "One" about the consequences of modern warfare. "
Well hang on.... part of being an artist is commenting on things that worry us!! If the atom bomb isn't worth singing about, I don't know what is...
But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something.[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant. Politics is for politicians. It's fine and dandy to write songs about world peace (John Lennon's "Imagine" springs to mind), but once an artist starts naming names in his songs or in interviews then his credibility AS AN ARTIST is compromised.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?"
Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.
"I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules."
Wrong. Even Queen had to obey the decisions made by the British Musicians Union. They were lucky that they were not excluded and got away with paying a fine. There was nothing "heroic" in playing Sun City, it was a very unwise decision.[/QUOTE]
Did it hurt their career? Yes, it did.
Did they weigh the pros and cons before they went to play there? I'm sure they did.
Did they regret it? I think they regreted the fact that the whole ordeal hurt the band's image, but they never regreted playing to 9 consecutive sold-out nights to a total of 54 000 South Africans. And I KNOW FOR A FACT that the audiences were mixed.
Of course you could argue that many black South Africans could not afford to go to these shows, because Sun City was a very expensive, upper class resort, but by the same token I could argue that I couldn't go to more than one concert on the 2005 European tour.
I think I've trailed off, but I hope that I've made some kind of sensible remark.
V.
Well hang on.... part of being an artist is commenting on things that worry us!! If the atom bomb isn't worth singing about, I don't know what is...
But I get what you mean. Once it becomes overly political, I think it's time to just put the guitar down and go write a letter or something.[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant. Politics is for politicians. It's fine and dandy to write songs about world peace (John Lennon's "Imagine" springs to mind), but once an artist starts naming names in his songs or in interviews then his credibility AS AN ARTIST is compromised.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?"
Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.
"I think Queen were just making a statement that they would play for the people, and UN had no right to make the rules."
Wrong. Even Queen had to obey the decisions made by the British Musicians Union. They were lucky that they were not excluded and got away with paying a fine. There was nothing "heroic" in playing Sun City, it was a very unwise decision.[/QUOTE]
Did it hurt their career? Yes, it did.
Did they weigh the pros and cons before they went to play there? I'm sure they did.
Did they regret it? I think they regreted the fact that the whole ordeal hurt the band's image, but they never regreted playing to 9 consecutive sold-out nights to a total of 54 000 South Africans. And I KNOW FOR A FACT that the audiences were mixed.
Of course you could argue that many black South Africans could not afford to go to these shows, because Sun City was a very expensive, upper class resort, but by the same token I could argue that I couldn't go to more than one concert on the 2005 European tour.
I think I've trailed off, but I hope that I've made some kind of sensible remark.
V.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Who gives a flying shit about Sun City?"
Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.
[/QUOTE]
Don't put my words out of the context in which I said them please.
When I say I don't give a 'flying shit' about Sun City, I am absolutely not saying that I don't care about the poors in the 3th world. That are two different discussions. The reason that I am saying it (please read my post again and maybe you see the context) is that by playing in a 'wrong' country doesn't mean you are supporting the regime. That's why I don't give a flying shit about queen playing there, because the don't support the regime.
Please try to see the big picture:
-World Cup Football 1978 Argentina (Germany and a lot of other countries played there, Videla's regime was terrible does the individual football player support the regime? of course not)
-Rolling Stones Playing at China. China still is a country with one of the most terrible human rights in history of mankind. (Do the Stones approve the regime by playing there, Of course not)
-Billy Joel playing in Former USSR. (Did he support the communistic terror-regime? Of course not)
-Dire straits playing in Hungary, (same questions same answers)
And these are only a handfull of all the examples one could make.
Politic measures and boycots are meant as a pressure tool between countries.
If Queen sold weapons, food, oil or whatever to the gouvernment of South Africa I would say, yes you are supporting that terrible regime of the Apartheid. But by playing music to the people suffering from a regime you don't support a gouvernment in a single way.
By playing a football match which is exactly the same thing: entertainment you don't support the regime neither.
Maybe the timing was bad, that's another story but performing there itself wasn't.
Perhaps you would have given a "flying shit" if you had lived in South Africa as a black person at the time. And if you lived in a poor 3rd world country today maybe you would thank God for a "wanker" like Bono whose debt relief efforts gives hundreds of thousands of people hope for a better future. It's easy to bad mouth people who care when you are privileged enough to live in a safe country and your basic human rights are not violated.
[/QUOTE]
Don't put my words out of the context in which I said them please.
When I say I don't give a 'flying shit' about Sun City, I am absolutely not saying that I don't care about the poors in the 3th world. That are two different discussions. The reason that I am saying it (please read my post again and maybe you see the context) is that by playing in a 'wrong' country doesn't mean you are supporting the regime. That's why I don't give a flying shit about queen playing there, because the don't support the regime.
Please try to see the big picture:
-World Cup Football 1978 Argentina (Germany and a lot of other countries played there, Videla's regime was terrible does the individual football player support the regime? of course not)
-Rolling Stones Playing at China. China still is a country with one of the most terrible human rights in history of mankind. (Do the Stones approve the regime by playing there, Of course not)
-Billy Joel playing in Former USSR. (Did he support the communistic terror-regime? Of course not)
-Dire straits playing in Hungary, (same questions same answers)
And these are only a handfull of all the examples one could make.
Politic measures and boycots are meant as a pressure tool between countries.
If Queen sold weapons, food, oil or whatever to the gouvernment of South Africa I would say, yes you are supporting that terrible regime of the Apartheid. But by playing music to the people suffering from a regime you don't support a gouvernment in a single way.
By playing a football match which is exactly the same thing: entertainment you don't support the regime neither.
Maybe the timing was bad, that's another story but performing there itself wasn't.
Well, I never said they supported the Apartheid regime intentionally. All the other examples you mentioned do not apply to the specific situation in Sun City in the 80s because there was an international cultural boycott.
Maybe you can compare it to the Olympics in Moscow 1980 which was boycotted by many Western countries - no Western athlete from the boycotting nations could go there and if they had ignored the boycott by their sports organisations they would have been totally unable to take part in any other sports event again. This was very tough for athletes who had spent years in preparation for the olympics and I personally thought the boycott was ridiculous because the boycott of one event could not make the invasion of Afghanistan undone.
However, the cultural boycott of South Africa could help to end the apartheid system and it was a great hope for the (black) majority in the country. You need a lot of goodwill and turning a blind eye to the situation in the country to defend Queen's Sun City concerts.
Maybe you can compare it to the Olympics in Moscow 1980 which was boycotted by many Western countries - no Western athlete from the boycotting nations could go there and if they had ignored the boycott by their sports organisations they would have been totally unable to take part in any other sports event again. This was very tough for athletes who had spent years in preparation for the olympics and I personally thought the boycott was ridiculous because the boycott of one event could not make the invasion of Afghanistan undone.
However, the cultural boycott of South Africa could help to end the apartheid system and it was a great hope for the (black) majority in the country. You need a lot of goodwill and turning a blind eye to the situation in the country to defend Queen's Sun City concerts.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]radio_what's_new wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]radio_what's_new wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions:
-Break Free video
-Hot Space
-Queen Dance tracks
-Musical
-Pepsi commercial
-Under pressure RAH mix
-stone cold classics
-Rocks
-GH 3
-DORO twins
-bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one)
-John Farnhem
-shall I continu?
[/QUOTE]
Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City.[/QUOTE]
Break free meant the end of success on the biggest market on the planet, the USA. Queen 'repaired' sun city with the gain of a whole new young european audience at live aid. The USA was lost forever.
Who gives a flying shit about Sun City? Queen didn't contribute to the apartheid regime because of playing there.
Same can be said about for example: The Stones weren't contributing to the violation of Human rights in China and Billy Joel wasn't contributing to the communistic regime in former USSR.
Rock 'n roll isn't about politics unless you are a wanker named Bono.[/QUOTE]
What's the point in insulting someone who caused no harm to anyone?
-Break Free video
-Hot Space
-Queen Dance tracks
-Musical
-Pepsi commercial
-Under pressure RAH mix
-stone cold classics
-Rocks
-GH 3
-DORO twins
-bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one)
-John Farnhem
-shall I continu?
[/QUOTE]
Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City.[/QUOTE]
Break free meant the end of success on the biggest market on the planet, the USA. Queen 'repaired' sun city with the gain of a whole new young european audience at live aid. The USA was lost forever.
Who gives a flying shit about Sun City? Queen didn't contribute to the apartheid regime because of playing there.
Same can be said about for example: The Stones weren't contributing to the violation of Human rights in China and Billy Joel wasn't contributing to the communistic regime in former USSR.
Rock 'n roll isn't about politics unless you are a wanker named Bono.[/QUOTE]
What's the point in insulting someone who caused no harm to anyone?
Kind of a loaded question, but it doesn't really matter to me that Queen played 'South Africa.'
It seems ironic that it was easier for Queen to get gigs in Sun City, than the USA, at the time. Why didn't Capitol step in at this point? With even some showcase gigs like Montreux Golden Rose, rather than a full blown tour? Didn't they feel like protecting their wonderful new investment? I wasn't in the room so it's not my place to say. Brian said "Queen couldn't even get arrested in the States!" -- which was true, given the popularity of the "I Ain't Gonna Play Sun City" single by Little Steven et al, which went Top 40.
Good point about the Break Free video -- but again, Elton John and Boy George were very popular at the time -- I still favor the theory that Freddie's personal assistant Paul Prenter had much to do with alienating music industry types. That could be wrong, or just a part of the picture. Bottom line: imho Queen were seen in the US industry as 'politically incorrect' not just for Sun City, but handling the transition from Elektra to Capitol. MTV was gung-ho about the "Radio GaGa" video, yay, but that's about it. I don't think Queen dropping from the US market for years has that much to do with the gay connotations of drag costumes -- <The World According to Garp> was a popular book and movie, <Victor/Victoria> and <Tootsie> are all that. Queen simply altered their musical brand too much imho by making "Hammer to Fall" a later single release --imagine the Headbanger mix & "I Go Crazy" as b-sides to the first single from <The Works>.
Even with headlines about Freddie passing, in the USA, it took Wayne & Garth to really bring back that Leroy Brown...schwing!
It seems ironic that it was easier for Queen to get gigs in Sun City, than the USA, at the time. Why didn't Capitol step in at this point? With even some showcase gigs like Montreux Golden Rose, rather than a full blown tour? Didn't they feel like protecting their wonderful new investment? I wasn't in the room so it's not my place to say. Brian said "Queen couldn't even get arrested in the States!" -- which was true, given the popularity of the "I Ain't Gonna Play Sun City" single by Little Steven et al, which went Top 40.
Good point about the Break Free video -- but again, Elton John and Boy George were very popular at the time -- I still favor the theory that Freddie's personal assistant Paul Prenter had much to do with alienating music industry types. That could be wrong, or just a part of the picture. Bottom line: imho Queen were seen in the US industry as 'politically incorrect' not just for Sun City, but handling the transition from Elektra to Capitol. MTV was gung-ho about the "Radio GaGa" video, yay, but that's about it. I don't think Queen dropping from the US market for years has that much to do with the gay connotations of drag costumes -- <The World According to Garp> was a popular book and movie, <Victor/Victoria> and <Tootsie> are all that. Queen simply altered their musical brand too much imho by making "Hammer to Fall" a later single release --imagine the Headbanger mix & "I Go Crazy" as b-sides to the first single from <The Works>.
Even with headlines about Freddie passing, in the USA, it took Wayne & Garth to really bring back that Leroy Brown...schwing!
I think they erred in playing Sun City, even though their motives in playing to a mixed audience at a time when that wasn't happening were pure. Just bad optics all around.
And for God's sake, does anybody really believe that Paul Prenter pissing off industry types had anything to do with Queen's lack of US success in the 80s? Mel Gibson publicly slandered an entire group of people and had a film out shortly thereafter and will work and makes oodles of money again. People in business have short memories. American audiences never took to Queen's keyboard heavy, pop stuff, and Capitol had a hard time promoting a band where it seemed like the guitarist was no longer in the band commercially. If Queen wrote and recorded Bohemain Rhapsody in 1985, would anyone give a fuck about one of Freddie's handlers "alleged" treatment of industry people? Not bloody likely. They'd be lining up to get their share of the cash.
And for God's sake, does anybody really believe that Paul Prenter pissing off industry types had anything to do with Queen's lack of US success in the 80s? Mel Gibson publicly slandered an entire group of people and had a film out shortly thereafter and will work and makes oodles of money again. People in business have short memories. American audiences never took to Queen's keyboard heavy, pop stuff, and Capitol had a hard time promoting a band where it seemed like the guitarist was no longer in the band commercially. If Queen wrote and recorded Bohemain Rhapsody in 1985, would anyone give a fuck about one of Freddie's handlers "alleged" treatment of industry people? Not bloody likely. They'd be lining up to get their share of the cash.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, I never said they supported the Apartheid regime intentionally. All the other examples you mentioned do not apply to the specific situation in Sun City in the 80s because there was an international cultural boycott.
[/QUOTE]
But that´s the point! The only reason South Africa was the only one having a cultural boicot was because the racist situation.
As mentioned before, there were other countries with much worse conditions wich never got that culture boicot. They only boicoted South Africa because of the shame of the past.
As you know, many European countries in the past have colonized African countries and not treated them so well.
You know, many countries like to wave the antiracist flag, but if you only knew what´s going on in Africa and who sponsors the wars you´d be surprised at the Hypocrisy of Western countries and UN.
When i say that Queen´s decision was heroic is because they went ahead with something they believed in even taking the risk of being blacklisted. Many things are made just because the shame of the past, and this is one of them. For me it´s the same thing if White people are treating bad Black people or Balck people treating bad Black people or White on White. There´s no difference and i support everything wich puts a stop to human violence in this world.
But to close the eyes to some atrocities and waving a flag against others just to appear they care- this is the highest level of hypocrisy by the politicians. In the last 20 years many countries have appeared good in the news by standing against racism, at the same time they were sponsoring war in several countries in Africa.
It´s the world we live in!
We need more guys like Bono, Madre Teresa and others who can really speak from the heart and help.
Take care
[/QUOTE]
But that´s the point! The only reason South Africa was the only one having a cultural boicot was because the racist situation.
As mentioned before, there were other countries with much worse conditions wich never got that culture boicot. They only boicoted South Africa because of the shame of the past.
As you know, many European countries in the past have colonized African countries and not treated them so well.
You know, many countries like to wave the antiracist flag, but if you only knew what´s going on in Africa and who sponsors the wars you´d be surprised at the Hypocrisy of Western countries and UN.
When i say that Queen´s decision was heroic is because they went ahead with something they believed in even taking the risk of being blacklisted. Many things are made just because the shame of the past, and this is one of them. For me it´s the same thing if White people are treating bad Black people or Balck people treating bad Black people or White on White. There´s no difference and i support everything wich puts a stop to human violence in this world.
But to close the eyes to some atrocities and waving a flag against others just to appear they care- this is the highest level of hypocrisy by the politicians. In the last 20 years many countries have appeared good in the news by standing against racism, at the same time they were sponsoring war in several countries in Africa.
It´s the world we live in!
We need more guys like Bono, Madre Teresa and others who can really speak from the heart and help.
Take care
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]radio_what's_new wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen made a lot more bad careeer decisions:
-Break Free video
-Hot Space
-Queen Dance tracks
-Musical
-Pepsi commercial
-Under pressure RAH mix
-stone cold classics
-Rocks
-GH 3
-DORO twins
-bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one)
-John Farnhem
-shall I continu?
[/QUOTE]
Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying the same thing. Its like comparing apples and blue whales.
-Break Free video
-Hot Space
-Queen Dance tracks
-Musical
-Pepsi commercial
-Under pressure RAH mix
-stone cold classics
-Rocks
-GH 3
-DORO twins
-bites the dust remixes (wyclef jean and the new one)
-John Farnhem
-shall I continu?
[/QUOTE]
Not even close to being the same as playing Sun City.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying the same thing. Its like comparing apples and blue whales.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, I never said they supported the Apartheid regime intentionally. All the other examples you mentioned do not apply to the specific situation in Sun City in the 80s because there was an international cultural boycott.
Maybe you can compare it to the Olympics in Moscow 1980 which was boycotted by many Western countries - no Western athlete from the boycotting nations could go there and if they had ignored the boycott by their sports organisations they would have been totally unable to take part in any other sports event again. This was very tough for athletes who had spent years in preparation for the olympics and I personally thought the boycott was ridiculous because the boycott of one event could not make the invasion of Afghanistan undone.
However, the cultural boycott of South Africa could help to end the apartheid system and it was a great hope for the (black) majority in the country. You need a lot of goodwill and turning a blind eye to the situation in the country to defend Queen's Sun City concerts.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you're right.
But I still can't understand how a cultural boycott can change a situation like the apartheid regime.
Maybe you can compare it to the Olympics in Moscow 1980 which was boycotted by many Western countries - no Western athlete from the boycotting nations could go there and if they had ignored the boycott by their sports organisations they would have been totally unable to take part in any other sports event again. This was very tough for athletes who had spent years in preparation for the olympics and I personally thought the boycott was ridiculous because the boycott of one event could not make the invasion of Afghanistan undone.
However, the cultural boycott of South Africa could help to end the apartheid system and it was a great hope for the (black) majority in the country. You need a lot of goodwill and turning a blind eye to the situation in the country to defend Queen's Sun City concerts.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you're right.
But I still can't understand how a cultural boycott can change a situation like the apartheid regime.