Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Q/Mojo Special Edition - Queen

forum rss feed
Author

Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 05, 11:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Had a read through this last night (well, the first few articles anyhow) and was shocked at the lack of new information / detail in it.

I find it hard to understand how it can be described as a "special" edition when there is nothing new to be read.

Did anyone find anything in there that was either interesting or informative r that you couldn't fnd in any other previosuly released Queen book?

The writers even have the temerity to credit books like Queen The Early Years and As It Began for "additional material".


Benn
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 05, 11:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I live in the USA so the Q/Mojo Special Edition has not hit here yet and I am waiting to read it, more so now after what you said.

I however, was surprised at what I thought was the exact same thing with the Uncut Magazine. I thought the New interviews with Brian & Paul Rodgers were great.

But I was quite disappointed in the article which quoted from other sources, told info most everyone already knows, had a ton of fact check errors, and was very tabloid in nature, especially towards Freddie I thought. It barely even discussed Queen's music, just their excesses. I wanted to know about their music and career. Oh well. Guess tales of excess sells better.


xyz
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Mar 05, 12:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Arlene,

Expect much the same from the q "special" - tons of picture caption innaccuracies - yadda yadda.

Who the hell employs these people and then actually thanks them.......

Sheesh!


Benn
Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 05, 05:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I thiught it WASN'T THAT BAD. Nothing new- yeah. Mistakes- tell me about it. But... Dunno- wasn't that bad IMO- out of all MAGAZINE SPECIALS about Queen (plenty of them were don eafter Fred's death) that was the best one I saw. The interviews with B. and R. are really good IMO.

Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 05, 06:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hah - I remember buying ALL of those special magazines after Fred died - all they were doing was cashing in on the furore.

Same with this, but "slightly" higher quality - nothing better in terms of detail.

I'm happier to wait for the NME Originals version that will inevitably appear - they have access to far higher quality material including better photographers who keep decent records.


Benn
forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 157 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Mar 05, 18:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't read books or magazines alot and don't have more than 2 Queen books, so I found this quite good and with lots of information I had either forgoten or didn't know. I also thought the layout of each section was quite good. But I was dissapointed with the buyers guide, as I thought there could have been more info about bootlegs and memorobilia and rare items!


Just one year of love, is better than a life time alone!
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 04:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I also noticed this morning that at the top of the cover, it states "Special Collectors Issue" - like what?????????

As for the buyers guide, you have to remember that QPL believe bootlegging to be grand larceny - they paid a tscit nod to the bootleggers with the recent "Top 100" releases via QOL, but it was hardly "beating" the bootleggers at their own game. People interested in live material will already have the titles that QOL are expecting people to PAY for and in no better quality.

As I understand it, the number of downloads for each title has been ridiculously low. We're talking a couple of hundred tops.

I'm going to mail the publishers of the magazine to ask them to justify their statements on the cover and will post the response (however unlikely it is that I receive one) here.


Benn
QMOJO user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 9 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 06:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi there. Good to see the magazine being discussed.
I have some questions re: some of the earlier postings. Out of interest, what extra "detail" would you like to have seen in the mag? Likewise, rare items and memorabilia. Good to know this for future reference.
Re: NME Originals and "photographers that keep better records. This is unlikely, as we all have access to the same photographers. And I don’t think any of them would mind me saying that as they shot so many bands, so many times, they often don’t know when pics were taken either. This makes it extremely difficult to date every pic accurately – hence errors in the final mag, I’m afraid. Sorry some of you didn’t like it. But, hey, we tried!

hcrvelin user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 251 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 09:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I just grabbed my copy of Q magazine during lunch. If first place I bought it for my girlfriend. She is fun, but she started to follow Queen after 1986. I think magazine editions like this are more for such people who will find more new information inside than others who actively followed everything related to Queen and person involved. Of course, I want to read new interview and I'm sure I will find something inside I missed before or simply forgot.

I believe what fans sometimes forget (including myself) is that people buying someone's record are not necessary fans. I see the same with this Special.

Die hard fans should not expect nothing new (except new interview which is fine). From that point of view this issue of magazine might be collectors one (as to collect everything related to Queen), but without many new news they feel down. That's classic with fans :) However, to make it really collectors edition I would love to see CD attached with some rare bootlegs or DVD with some rare photos, video, etc. I guess when preparing collectors edition for big names like Queen (and others too) that would be a small effort which Q/Mojo/you_name_it could do.


H
Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 09:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi QMOJO-
thanks for your effort, as I said- it was I think the best "special" I've seen so far. But apart from captions there were maaaaaaany mistakes all along.
From top of my head:
* John songs- you guys put DON'T TRY SO HARD in there which is not true. None of the songs on INNUENDO is John's.
*You said in one place about THE SHOW MUST GO ON as being written by Freddie- again not true as it was Brian
*There's plenty of mistakes in Buyers Guide

Anyway- I don't have the mag with me- I can try and point out the most obvious ones by tomorrow, if you're interested.



Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 12:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

QMOJO,

>And I don’t think any of them would mind me saying that as they shot so many bands, so many times, they often don’t know when pics were taken either. This makes it extremely difficult to date every pic accurately – hence errors in the final mag, I’m afraid.

So that begs the question: Why caption pictures unless you are 100% certain about their accuracy? If nothing else, this leads "curious" fans (as opposed to die-hards) to accept what they see as being the truth, when infact, it's *nothing like it*.

Do you have a team of proof readers that proof read everything you you print or do you out -source it to fans for special editions like this?




Benn
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 13:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As a journalist myself, I fact check over & over and proofread my copy...prior to my submission to the lovely (sarcasm) Editor...from there, it's anyones' guess.

Here in the USA, the press has really been taken to task lately for this very topic. Lack of fact checks, not checking sources, lack of accuracy, etc.

Here in the USA, this past year, --3---top level, HARD SERIOUS NEWS Reporters for the 3 Most Prestigious credentialed newspapers in the USA, were all FIRED for 100% fabricating and/or plagerising 100% of their News articles, over many years of their careers...

Jayson Blair for The New York Times, Stephen Glass for The New Republic, and Mike Kelly for USA Today...yet how did they initially get work, establish and maintain their careers and get hired and keep their jobs for many, many years and get many, many promotions and great assignments...when they made up and plagerized every single article and interview they wrote...

and this is Hard News folks, not music, arts, entertainment....but I have difficulty getting work and I am a 100% totally ethical, responsible, accurate, accountable journalist.
I never write tabloid stuff either. I just don't get it.

Oh, Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass now all have BIG MONEY book deals/tell alls about their scams...and I saw both writers interviewed on NBC TV's Dateline, to which the interviewers Stone Phillips and Katie Couric said to both reporters, "So crime Does pay huh. Plus you have no remorse for your actions."


xyz
*goodco* user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1128 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 15:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Rather's gang at CBS eff's up the facts on Dumbya's National Guard spotty as hell attendance record, and heads roll.

GW's gang eff's up the facts of WMDs in Iraq, start a war, and Congressional Medals of Freedom are awarded, as well as promotions given (Rice, Wolfawitz, etc).

It's all in who ya know.

and I do wish some would fact check before writing about Queen on this NG

j+III


"Discretionary posting is the better part of valor." Falstaff
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 15:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

jgoodm wrote:


It's all in who ya know.

j+III


Damn Straight...


xyz
TheDrown user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 34 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Mar 05, 22:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote


I was very depressed but not surprised about the Queen article in Uncut. It was litterally completely about decadence, parties, and drug use amongst Queen- not about music, concepts, behind the scenes facts about recording, etc.

This is how it is... NME, Q, whatever, the lifestyle of a musician is what appeals to the common reader, apparently. I suppose it appeals to journalists because thats the sort of life they *wished* they had. To me, it's just nonsense.

Banquo user not visiting Queenzone.com
Banquo
Deity: 2636 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Mar 05, 05:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A very good effort. However I must disagree with Paul Elliot's take on 'Black Queen containing the dubiuous use of thew word 'Nigger'. As we all should know 'Nigger Sugar' is actually an archaic word to describe raw cane sugar, thus its in keeping with the songs lyrics.


Guess who's back?
doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Mar 05, 11:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

TheDrown wrote:


I was very depressed but not surprised about the Queen article in Uncut. It was litterally completely about decadence, parties, and drug use amongst Queen- not about music, concepts, behind the scenes facts about recording, etc.

This is how it is... NME, Q, whatever, the lifestyle of a musician is what appeals to the common reader, apparently. I suppose it appeals to journalists because thats the sort of life they *wished* they had. To me, it's just nonsense.


Arlene wrote:
I live in the USA so the Q/Mojo Special Edition has not hit here yet and I am waiting to read it, more so now after what you said.

I however, was surprised at what I thought was the exact same thing with the Uncut Magazine. I thought the New interviews with Brian & Paul Rodgers were great.

But I was quite disappointed in the article which quoted from other sources, told info most everyone already knows, had a ton of fact check errors, and was very tabloid in nature, especially towards Freddie I thought. It barely even discussed Queen's music, just their excesses. I wanted to know about their music and career. Oh well. Guess tales of excess sells better. [/Quote]


I agree. I was apalled at how tabloid the article was, and I mean BIG time tabloid. I have read alot of artist articles that included some tales of excess, I guess for those out there who want to read sensational trash, but this particular article on Queen in "Uncut" was nearly 100% slanted towards tales of hedonistic excess with a ton of errors to boot.

If I had never ever heard of Queen prior to reading this article, I would have learned absolutely nothing about who they were as music artists and their musical achievements and contributions.

I also was to be honest, surprised that Brian...of all people, did not have or post any problem with this negative tabloid trash on his website.

FYI too, Brian & all of the members of Queen (including Freddie), have had a now what is it,
3 decade long war with NME Magazine for publishing just this kind of trash....and Brian is very frank to this day about it on his website.

Uncut Magazine is not only owned and published by the SAME Publishing Company as NME Magazine, but Uncut Magazine uses MANY of NME's Writers--the same writers write for BOTH publications. So why on earth did Brian grant an interview to Uncut Magazine at all and then say nothing when this trash was written up in the article?

To make matters worse, when the advance promos came out for the Uncut Magazine Cover Story...it said nicely and quite misleadingly.."We Remember Freddie", then when I read the actual article in Uncut...it focused 100% on tales of debauchery,alot of all of the members of Queen, but mostly it stressed that of Freddie's. I know enough about that. Get a life. Leave it alone. I wanted to hear about what did make Queen and Freddie memorable and important in the world of music...

Queen's music, Freddie's music, his talent, his songwriting, his vision, his innovation with the likes of "Bohemian Rhapsody" and all of his music, his stratospheric showmanship as a live performer...HOW he..along with all of the members of Queen stole the show at Live Aid.

Queen's talent, Queen's vision, Queen's songwriting, innovation, and influence on other music artists, music, popular culture, etc.

I wanted to hear detailed stories of "the making of" certain songs, records. Great anecdotes about Queen's artistry and development as musicians over time, etc.

Not a word about any of this. Good Grief!



xyz
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Mar 05, 06:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Drown......

Unfortunately, that's what *most* people have been told about Queen in the past and is, sadly, what they are remembered for. That ridiculous quote from Francis Rossi about Freddie is just an example of the kind of think that a tabloid-based publication will print just to shift a few extra copies.

Another example of the lack of attention to detail is the following:

"(after the final Japanese date of 1982) nothing other than Under Pressure was ever played live again (or words to that effect)"

Clearly incorrect when we all know that Staying Power was played at least once in Europe in 1984.

The trick with magazine / newspaper articles is to read them and then think about what you *know" to be true already and then compare that against what you've just read. Anything that you read and you doubt, can pretty much be solved on a forum like this.

My copy of the Queen "special collector's edition" is now winging it's way back to the publishers for a refund because it doesn't do what it says on the cover and is, therefore, contravening the Trades Description Act.




Benn
QMOJO user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 9 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Mar 05, 12:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

hcrvelin wrote: [However, to make it really collectors edition I would love to see CD attached with some rare bootlegs or DVD with some rare photos, video, etc. I guess when preparing collectors edition for big names like Queen (and others too) that would be a small effort which Q/Mojo/you_name_it could do.



You and I would both love to see a collectors’ edition with a CD attached of rare bootlegs or DVDs, but I cannot see a time when any major bands’ record label would sanction such a freebie. Nice idea, though.

Penetration_Guru user not visiting Queenzone.com
Penetration_Guru
Deity: 11013 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Mar 05, 15:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think that suggestion typifies this site at the moment.

Unrealistic expectations & a desire to be "given" everything.

How long do you have to monitor the two sites for feedback before the boss sends you off to the next artist (presumably whichever of U2/REM hasn't already been done)