Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Dear Mr Murdoch

forum rss feed
Author

AB-88 user not visiting Queenzone.com
AB-88
Bohemian: 129 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jul 11, 14:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pecFVzIfCNA&feature=feedu

Who else could do this? Best two fingers up to The News of The World.


"I'm just a musical prostitute"
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jul 11, 16:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

it's 17 f**king years old...it's not best two fingers...cos it's not a current response

and it's a piss-poor song also


go deo na hÉireann
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira user not visiting Queenzone.com
Arnaldo
Deity: 2229 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jul 11, 20:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I kinda like the song. And I LOVE the attitude. =&^D


Keep Passing the Open Windows
paulosham user not visiting Queenzone.com
Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon
paulosham
Bohemian: 655 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jul 11, 21:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

While Roger had the right intention I think the song is pretty shit.

I much prefer this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1P6KUyOhBc


Don't shun it!
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 01:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It need not be current in order to be relevant. 

Art's value to its audience, among other things, is to be capable of application long after the original work was created. Art is not created in a vacuum, nor does its influence or relevance have an expiry date applied to it. Topical works can be re-contextualized or be open to interpretation, whereby it gives voice to a new speaker or provides commentary on later happenings. If the ideas expressed, which hold the work together, hold sway to some, then the work becomes salient (or remains so).

AB-88 user not visiting Queenzone.com
AB-88
Bohemian: 129 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 14:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Regardless how old it is - I think it's an appropriate way to stick two fingers up by Roger after everything that happened when Freddie was ill.


"I'm just a musical prostitute"
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 16:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

it's only appropriate if you stick to your principles....it appears that Roger didn't.....Queen (hypocritically in my view) have repeatedly used Murdoch's newpapers to advertise various queen "product"

you have to ask (to quote queen) "who needs who" ?  as it appears Murdoch's empire makes quite a bit of money form QPL's very moralistic stance


go deo na hÉireann
mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3607 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 17:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

First of all... thanks for a new post on the subject.. better than adding your opinion to the many others..

Second... the first line should go.. 'Dear Mr Murdoch... thanks for the free cd you gave away in your rag to make money for me.. this tabloid promotion only works one way doesnt it?'

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 20:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands...

Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on.

It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song.

Dr Zoidberg user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 39 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 21:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Here's a life lesson, kids - everybody's a hypocrite if they live long enough. Most folks just don't have ten thousand people poised to point out their hypocrisy all over the interwebs.


Hoo-RAY!
GratefulFan user not visiting Queenzone.com
GratefulFan
Deity: 3776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 22:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rhyeking wrote: I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands...

Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on.

It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song.
============================

Good Christ rhyeking.  You've out-douchebagged even yourself here, which is something indeed.

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Jul 11, 23:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

GratefulFan wrote: rhyeking wrote: I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands...

Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on.

It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song.
============================

Good Christ rhyeking.  You've out-douchebagged even yourself here, which is something indeed.
===================================

Deal with it.

catqueen user not visiting Queenzone.com
:)

Royalty: 1758 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Jul 11, 09:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

brENsKi wrote: it's only appropriate if you stick to your principles....it appears that Roger didn't.....Queen (hypocritically in my view) have repeatedly used Murdoch's newpapers to advertise various queen "product"

you have to ask (to quote queen) "who needs who" ?  as it appears Murdoch's empire makes quite a bit of money form QPL's very moralistic stance
hmm... i see what you mean, but how does one AVOID using a Murdoch paper to promote stuff?  I mean he owns a fair few of them... In college in first year sociology i did a project on media and was horrified how many papers are owned by the one company, its unreal.

brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Jul 11, 16:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

but surely the argument is about having principles, or not. or in Rpger's case apparently choosing when to apply principles.....

if Roger really had the principles he claims to have in "that" song then perhaps he doesn't prositute QPL to the one man he loathes, detests, hates, and sees as EVERYTHING that is wrong with the free press.... a man of such high principles as claimed, would take his advertising money to MirrorGroup who own a lont of local newspapers as well as the mirror, sunday mirror and the people....

and if you really want to make a stand...advertise on any commerical tv/radio station that isn't own by murdoch......ITV, channel4  and even channel 5 still have greater numbers of viewers than any single sky channel...or give your money to murdoch's main TV rival...virgin...there are so many solutions...but queen chose the easiest....

shame is that any previous protests are muted completely now...because if you get int bed with the devil, you're gonna end up sucking his c*ck....right now queen have been jizzed on by NewsCorp (to the sum of how ever much it costs to advertise TCR, WWRY and various other things, most of which didnt sell)


go deo na hÉireann
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Jul 11, 20:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No one here has proposed that Roger or Queen or QPL could ever possibly be using this organization against which they have railed to try to do something more noble, to manipulate a corrupt system from within in order to bring about change. By promoting their art in a "sleazy" tabloid, they are subverting the tabloid's standards.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jul 11, 01:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's still a shit song.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jul 11, 07:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rhyeking wrote: .......By promoting their art in a "sleazy" tabloid, they are subverting the tabloid's standards.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

no they're not.

the "lack of standards" will always remain the same.....bottom line: newpapers make money thru circulation and advertising....queen had several products to sell.....so they compromised their principles for the bigger God....filthy lucre

it's ok for you to kid yourself...enjoy the fantasyland sterile vacuum...but please don't try and pass your beliefs off as facts...all you serve to do is confuse those who are easily impressioned


go deo na hÉireann
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jul 11, 11:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'd rather pass on the possibility that the Roger and Queen are human, capable of compromise while still enlightening their audience, over passing on this bitter double-standard and misguided intolerance. A more positive perspective is far less poisonous to impressionable minds than the flawed totalitarian black and white view.  

Distilling your opinion of Rupert's media outlets as: "Sleaze is what they do, that's the way it is, take it or leave" is not a defense for their irresponsible journalism. It absolves Murdoch's empire of any repercussions of their actions, by implying that they have no choice. By all accounts, they *choose* to take the low road.

However, if Queen/Roger/QPL choose to use what they see as a questionable source of information (say, The Sun) to promote what they feel is a little more high-brow, it most certainly subverts the standards of the paper. It attempts to transform the established social order. It undermines the base intentions of the medium be being of greater value to its audience. If the band uses the paper to draw new people to their art, allowing these newcomers to see that there is more to the world than the lowest common denominator, then it is a victory.

Oh, and when I qualify a thought as "possibility" or simply with "if," I'm not passing anything on as a fact. What I'm doing is far more insidious: offering up a idea.

GratefulFan user not visiting Queenzone.com
GratefulFan
Deity: 3776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jul 11, 12:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The most generous spin I can put on it that perhaps the mistake was thinking of 'Dr. Mr. Murdoch' as a principled stance in the first place.  Perhaps it was just a bunch of bitching set to music.  One can certainly be part of a system and still find fault with it and make legitimate criticisms from within.  Roger may have never anticipated or intended having the song juxtaposed with his business decisions years later, and he similarly could not have anticipated the scope of these current events that have made the song so immediately relevant when he gave that interview in February.  Had he been able to see into the future he may have chosen to openly forgo the benefits of using The Sun for a chance to be a credible voice on it's negative effects on society.

That's the best I can do.  But truthfully I don't know that reality supports that version all that well.  The X-Factor and AI stuff so fast on the heels of C-lebrity was another pile of grist for the mill, both in it's actuality and in Roger's public comments.  When he appeared on the Jools Holland show he appeared very much to want to have his cake and eat it too by not so subtly referencing shows "with real music" or something to that affect.  One really shouldn't get down in the mud and then sit on a throne and bemoan the filth, not unless you're angling to breed cynicism and a degree of contempt.   I think he's uncomfortable with some of his associations, but not uncomfortable enough to do anything meaningful about it.  Which has kind of been Roger all along:  he's well known for being motivated to social commentary through his music and he's well known for not really giving a crap about what the jabbering masses think.  If the song catches on and makes him some money he'll have another chance to make it into something more meaningful than a slightly clumsy moan fest through relevant use of the profits or by allowing it to more closely guide his future decisions.

Holly2003 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 4675 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jul 11, 12:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Indeed. It's the same kind of logic that gives us songs like "everything is broken" by an artist who, I believe, left Britain to avoid paying income taxes. That's one of the reasons why everything is broken -- rich people avoiding taxes!


"With a population of 1.75 million, Northern Ireland should really be a footballing minnow. Instead, they could be better described as the piranhas of the international game" (FIFA.com)