Forums > Queen - General Discussion > An article in The Guardian I happened to read...

forum rss feed
Author

Crisstti user not visiting Queenzone.com
Crisstti
Bohemian: 186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Mar 09, 23:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2000/dec/07/tvandradio.television2

Does The Guardian have something against Queen or what?.  This is not the first article of this kind I read... but it is the most vicious.  It's a review of Freddie Mercury: The Untold Story (an old article).  Just how can someone be so vicious when talking about someone else, who has done nothing to them , who they didn't even know...?.  The amount of assumptions the writer makes (like he kept playing music until the end because he was too much in love with himself.  Fact.  Not possibly because maybe he loved music that much...  Not to mention what he says about Queen's music.  Just amazing.  Isn't The Guardian supposed to be a serious newspaper?.

I'd be upset, but the article is really so far out... that I'm not.


"All you need is love"
Marcelo_argentina user not visiting Queenzone.com
Marcelo_argentina
Bohemian: 219 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Mar 09, 06:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

yeah totally agree here, but do not forget that you have the power, they have the paper, but you should know that you have the power...keep the good analysis!

mr mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
mr mercury
Deity: 4626 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Mar 09, 06:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Now you know not to read tabloid shit like this. They invariably will attack Freddie's sexuality, etc, with an unerring irregularity. Its nearly always the same with these biography books about the band. 80-90% about his homosexuality and a bit about Brian's guitar and his playing finished off with a bit about Roger and John. Boring.


"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
Crisstti user not visiting Queenzone.com
Crisstti
Bohemian: 186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Mar 09, 11:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Mr Mercury wrote:

Now you know not to read tabloid shit like this. They invariably will attack Freddie's sexuality, etc, with an unerring irregularity. Its nearly always the same with these biography books about the band. 80-90% about his homosexuality and a bit about Brian's guitar and his playing finished off with a bit about Roger and John. Boring.

Yeah, but I thought The Guardian was not supossed to be a tabloid paper...




"All you need is love"
mr mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
mr mercury
Deity: 4626 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Mar 09, 11:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Crisstti wrote:



 



Mr Mercury wrote:



Now you know not to read tabloid shit like this. They invariably will attack Freddie's sexuality, etc, with an unerring irregularity. Its nearly always the same with these biography books about the band. 80-90% about his homosexuality and a bit about Brian's guitar and his playing finished off with a bit about Roger and John. Boring.


Yeah, but I thought The Guardian was not supossed to be a tabloid paper...




Sorry I meant to use "tabloid" as a catch all phrase for all types of newspapers.






"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
vadenuez user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 263 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Mar 09, 15:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What a sad existence must this guy be leading when he's so bitter about a rock singer who died seventeen years ago.


Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Mar 09, 13:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Disgusting. Not only does the 'writer' make comments about Queen's music which are so extreme that you would think they killed his cat or something, but he makes fun of a guy dying of AIDS!! Horrifying. More so that the Guardian, one of my favourite papers would publish such filth. It's one thing to dislike Queen and Freddie; however the article goes os over the top that one simply has to ask; what the heck has the 'writer' does with his life?!


LozIan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 39 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Mar 09, 14:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This guy's a fucking moron.  All uncalled-for lambasting of a dead man aside, Brain Salad Surgery is an album by Emerson, Lake and Palmer.  And (correct me if I'm mistaken here), I believe Queen cracked American quite readily in the 70's.  It was only in the 80's that their stateside popularity began to wane.  Add some zealous moral gibberish to these mistakes, and I think any hint of credibility is safely flushed away.


A_WintersTale user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 55 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Mar 09, 09:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I remember this article. It was the same that made Brian so angry when it was released. I think you could still find his comments about it in his soapbox.


magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2687 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Mar 09, 11:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It sounds a lot like jealousy-denied to me. There's more than just dislike of Freddie and Queen in that piece, there's rage. It's useless, actually, and quite pathetic that someone would feel so put out by the fame of another that nary a shred of credit is given to that other person from birth to death. Seriously, how did this opinion piece ever see print... and how was it allowed to go unchallenged by other Guardian opinions? Certainly someone had the balls to disagree with this publicly, no?


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



emma246000 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 98 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Mar 09, 10:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That article was positively nasty! Its like bad-mouthing the dead! Ugh!! [img=/images/smiley/msn/angry_smile.gif][/img]


A Queen Fan From Down-Under
Crisstti user not visiting Queenzone.com
Crisstti
Bohemian: 186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Mar 09, 13:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It sounds a lot like jealousy-denied to me. There's more than just dislike of Freddie and Queen in that piece, there's rage. It's useless, actually, and quite pathetic that someone would feel so put out by the fame of another that nary a shred of credit is given to that other person from birth to death. Seriously, how did this opinion piece ever see print... and how was it allowed to go unchallenged by other Guardian opinions? Certainly someone had the balls to disagree with this publicly, no?

I think you're right.  It must be something like that.

I might have missed it, but I think the name of the writer of the article is not there.

And it's really lowered my opinion of that newspaper, which I thought was supossed to be a serious one.  It seems they let people write anything.  I doubt you can find something like that in The Sun.


"All you need is love"
Oberon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 499 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Mar 09, 16:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This guy worked at Rolling Stone (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/arts/author/ben_marshall/profile.html) which might say it all?

It really is a completely bias piece of writing. To suggest that he kept performing just due to vanity is so one sided. He doesn't even entertain the possibility that it could have been the one thing to keep Freddie from dwelling on his plight.

And he all but claims that Freddie infected lovers without a care in the world. I mean, I have no doubt that Fred didn't really contemplate the consequences of his actions, but then neither did thousands, maybe millions of other sexually promiscuous people in the 80s. They knew no better, and as homosexuals really didn't believe there could be any problem. And how this writer can know when / if Fred practiced safe sex, I don't know. Even after '85 (when AIDS really hit the top spot) I don't think the message had really hit home. It always takes 2 to tango, 

If there's anything I've learnt about Freddie from what I've read, it's that he wanted things his way, and his fame and wealth could provide that, but i never get the sense that he went out of his way to upset people. I recall one story about him badgering a female in a restaurant, being quite obscene, but that is only one such anecdote I can recall. Most stories have been very complementary about him. I'm sure he (and Roger probably) did do lots of coke, but he's never let it be an issue (as far as I know). I don't recall him having tantrums like Elton, or getting in to trouble through drugs - never known him be in rehab or anything.

So the vicious nature of the article and the picture it paints of Freddie (and Queen) does seem totally one sideded, and doesn't fit with much of what I've read about the band (both the good and the bad).




Tatterdemalion and the junketer

There's a thief and a dragonfly trumpeter
April user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 440 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Mar 09, 18:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie was a very kind and generous guy. He did nobody harm. And to write such things about him is disgusting. I can`t understand people who are so angry, mean, aggressive to somebody who has done nothing bad to them, as some of you also write. Especially to people who died. This could mean either meanness of character or extreme jealousy. But nothing can ruin Freddie`s greatness.

Crisstti user not visiting Queenzone.com
Crisstti
Bohemian: 186 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Mar 09, 23:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This guy worked at Rolling Stone (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/arts/author/ben_marshall/profile.html) which might say it all?

It really is a completely bias piece of writing. To suggest that he kept performing just due to vanity is so one sided. He doesn't even entertain the possibility that it could have been the one thing to keep Freddie from dwelling on his plight.

And he all but claims that Freddie infected lovers without a care in the world. I mean, I have no doubt that Fred didn't really contemplate the consequences of his actions, but then neither did thousands, maybe millions of other sexually promiscuous people in the 80s. They knew no better, and as homosexuals really didn't believe there could be any problem. And how this writer can know when / if Fred practiced safe sex, I don't know. Even after '85 (when AIDS really hit the top spot) I don't think the message had really hit home. It always takes 2 to tango, 

If there's anything I've learnt about Freddie from what I've read, it's that he wanted things his way, and his fame and wealth could provide that, but i never get the sense that he went out of his way to upset people. I recall one story about him badgering a female in a restaurant, being quite obscene, but that is only one such anecdote I can recall. Most stories have been very complementary about him. I'm sure he (and Roger probably) did do lots of coke, but he's never let it be an issue (as far as I know). I don't recall him having tantrums like Elton, or getting in to trouble through drugs - never known him be in rehab or anything.

So the vicious nature of the article and the picture it paints of Freddie (and Queen) does seem totally one sideded, and doesn't fit with much of what I've read about the band (both the good and the bad).


Not just one-sided, but absurd.

So the writer worked in Rolling Stone...

I know the press usually didn't like Queen, but were they that vicious about them when they were together (you know, before Freddie died)?.  Anyone knows?.
Becasue I remember reading that article from NME "Is this man a prat" (which is nowhere as nasty as the Guardian one...), and there the writer commented that he had written a not very nice article about the band, and Freddie was obviously really angry about it... I find that article hilarious, really.  He's actually very rude with the journalist.  If journalists then were publishing articles anywhere near as vicious as the Guardian one, I can certainly understand why he qould be so angry...


"All you need is love"