Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Anyone else feel that Queen has become a corporate entity?

forum rss feed
Author

The Flash Danny Project user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 166 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Feb 06, 21:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ever since the "Queen+" thing came into existence, I've always thought the band crossed the line. Queen Rocks was an okay idea but Greatest Hits III was embarassing. Then the Wyclef Jean thing, then with 5ive, Robbie Williams. Fair enough, the band can do whatever they want, but I found myself cease being a "fan" in '99. Then I just bored with everything they did. It's like everything since has become a series of sequels to the FM Tribute Concert...

It's funny to hear things like "Freddie would've loved to record with such-and-such", but let me ask you this: just how many times did Queen actually collaborate with another artist when Freddie was alive? Queen were a very elite band, they did everything by themselves because they knew they didn't need anyone else. So it's quite a joke to hear Brian say things like "Freddie would've loved to work with a boy band or with a rap ensemble or with a blues singer that was, in many ways, the Yin to his Yang".

I suppose the most ironic thing is the musical. In it, it discusses how rock n roll has become extinct and is superceded by the talentless manufactured pop stars and how everything is about money and no longer for substance. Go figure...

________________________

Update

Not to mention the official website - it seems the whole gettup is just a backbone for the store, where everything is sold at inflated prices.

Plus how bout these DVDs and live CDs that get released and re-released an infinite amount of times. It's all marketing - a concert played in 1986 would sell more than a concert played in 1974 because it has that many more popular hits. Just how many 70s concerts have been officially released? The casual fan might not even know about Freddie's outrageous costumes in the 70s, or how unpolished they once sounded, or more importantly, how bloody hungry and keen he was during those earlier performances.


Insert stupid signature here
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Feb 06, 21:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

'Anyone else feel that Queen has become a corporate entity?'

No - never... Well would you believe it?


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Haystacks Calhoun user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1550 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Feb 06, 22:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen has been a corporate entity for over 20 years.....

Are you just now noticing, or are you just trying to be difficult?


"Not a fan of the ladies, are you Trebek?"



Sean Connery
7Innuendo7 user not visiting Queenzone.com
7Innuendo7
Bohemian: 816 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Feb 06, 22:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

if you want to swim with the big fishes, make sure you have sharp teeth ;)


When a red hot man meets a white hot lady, Hoop Diddy Diddy, Hoop Diddy Doo!
The Flash Danny Project user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 166 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Feb 06, 23:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I thought it standard to read posts before you reply to them...


Insert stupid signature here
Asterik user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 649 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 07:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen have never been anti- establishment, anti- corporate rockers. Fred din't go round wearing ethical clothes like that fool Bono, they never talked about saving trees. They have always been corporate and I for one don't have aproblem with it.


hj
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 07:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

]

eer, once you sign to a label you become a business, and as a business you then have multiple mouths to feed. Queen have many different business interests, Queen Prod, Queen Touring, Nightjar, Duck Prod, Goldfinch Prod, to name but a few, all of these companies operate solely to make money, that's what businesses do, every major artist does this not just Queen.

Queen are just better at it than many because they have a better product, only a small percentage of the music business is about music.

As for Freddie not colaborating, ever heard of Barcelona? or Dave Clark?

Look if Brian says Freddie would have liked to do something, who can argue with it, Brian did know him better than anyone on Queenzone I believe.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
rogertaylor88 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 160 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 09:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

U2 is the most corporative band all over the world (and the rolling stones) but they try to make us believe that that is not true...

rogertaylor88 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 160 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 09:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

And the rolling stones admit what they are...

Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 09:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well it may only be rock n roll, but it's business once you step out of that garage you've been playing in and onto a stage.

Like it or not these guys are there to make money and make a lot of it, good luck to them


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
~Blue_Acid~ user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 117 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 09:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen have been a corporate entity since 1975, the moment they hit it big is the moment it all began, its good though cause they kept true on their ideas. I think Freddie would have liked to work with Paul Rodgers or Robbie Williams, but definenlty not with a boyband or rap stars. Besides that who AOBTD remake was to reach a larger audience and its likely that it was recorded before Queen heard it for the first time. And Freddie worked with alot of people,not just Bowie.


"Im going to pull an Elvis Costello, but the chorus of this song goes What the hell are we fighting for..."

-Brian May 3/20/06 Pittsburgh @ the Mellon Arena before Hammer To Fall
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 11:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thing is I don't care for semantics like "should it be called Queen anymore" and I don't care how much money they rake in. I was only ever in this shit for the music - nothing else. If you're spending so much time worrying about how corporate they became, you've no one but yourself to blame because you *bought* their stuff, right?
Don't rag on about how materialistic and hypocritical a group becomes when they did it with our money. Personally, I think for giving me songs like Bijou, The Prophet's Song and Save Me, they can be as fucking corporate as they want!


"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
Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 12:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

There's no shame in being a business, and yes, U2 and the Stones are money grubbing bands also. However, U2 is away more forward thinking than QP with their marketing. The goal of QP is to flood the market with product, basically forcing the same product down the consumers throat, and never offering anything new. This helps the bottom line, but it dilutes the creative side of the band, which to be fair, ended in 1991. I just think it's kind of sad that the whole venture appears to be flogging and re-flogging ancient glories, when the whole beauty of 70s Queen was to do new and great things every time out.


You know, good times are now.
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 12:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

> Queen Rocks was an okay idea but Greatest Hits III was embarassing.

Rocks sucks compared to virtually every Queen album, Hits I, II and III ditto. Compilations (from any band) more often than not are total pants, not a big surprise.

> Then the Wyclef Jean thing, then with 5ive, Robbie Williams.

Wyclef is a good artist, 5ive are great singers, Robbie is brilliant at what he does. I think those were good choices to collaborate, the only thing I'm not OK with is the fact that it's labelled as "Queen+" instead of what it really is: "Brian&Roger+"

> Fair enough, the band can do whatever they want, but I found myself cease being a "fan" in '99.

As Sergey said, you can be a fan of the band's music without being fan of the members' personalities.

> It's like everything since has become a series of sequels to the FM Tribute Concert...

I've always felt the FM Tribute was actually a BM Tribute.

> It's funny to hear things like "Freddie would've loved to record with such-and-such"

Perhaps he would. It's difficult to know.

> but let me ask you this: just how many times did Queen actually collaborate with another artist when Freddie was alive?

With the exception of Sheer Heart Attack and News Of The World, none of the Queen albums are free of extras regarding either instruments, vocals or songwriting.

> the Yin to his Yang

Montserrat was the Yin to his Yang as well and he loved working with her. Still I don't think it's appropiate, neither from Brian's part nor from ours, to state whether Fred would have liked or disliked something. It's very easy to put words on a dead man's mouth.

> I suppose the most ironic thing is the musical.

Fred was much more into musicals than the other three put together. And he was probably more into craving fame and money than them as well.

> In it, it discusses how rock n roll has become extinct and is superceded by the talentless manufactured pop stars

I don't think that's the message. What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?

> and how everything is about money and no longer for substance.

I don't think Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen or Black Sabbath made music without thinking of fame & money.

> where everything is sold at inflated prices

Who's to blame? People who aren't considerate enough to cut their prices or people who aren't wit enough to stop buying such blag?

> Plus how bout these DVDs and live CDs that get released and re-released an infinite amount of times.

Ditto.

> It's all marketing - a concert played in 1986 would sell more than a concert played in 1974 because it has that many more popular hits.

Then it's clear that Queen have been a corporate entity always.

> U2 is the most corporative band all over the world (and the rolling stones) but they try to make us believe that that is not true...

And that's how their business works.

> The goal of QP is to flood the market with product

I disagree. At least they don't do it so much as others.

> This helps the bottom line, but it dilutes the creative side of the band, which to be fair, ended in 1991.

Very true. I find it funny and pathetic that Brian claims to "move on" and such and he hasn't. They're playing a set filled by songs which in most cases have been written over two decades ago, and using a name they wouldn't be labelling themselves with if they were "moving away from the past". If he wants to live off memories, good for him, but at least he could have the courage to admit that he's doing that instead of usin


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
mystic_rhythms user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 448 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 13:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To be honest, it does seem that Queen has become a corporate entity, but I doubt it is indeed true.

Look around you nowadays: what isn't a symbol of corporate domination? Millions of dollars spent and made for advertisement, dozens of great songs completely butchered and misused by those advertisers, and much, much more!

I feel that the "Queen +" idea wasn't much of a desparate manuever on the part of Queen Productions; it simply was to reintroduce itself to the newer generation. With the outpour of wannabe pop stars (Britney, etc.) and the failure of reason within the music industry, it was time for Queen to get on the side of the newer generation.

This idea was able to keep Queen alive, and was able to rekindle the flame that was mere milliseconds from expiring in front of our eyes. Say what you want, i think it was a lifesaver.

And btw I don't believe Queenonline charges too much for its online products, it's about as much here in the US as it is there, so it makes sense.


We can only grow the way the wind blows

On a bare and weathered shore

We can only bow to the here and now

In our elemental war

- Rush, "The Way The Wind Blows"
Ray D O'Gaga user not visiting Queenzone.com
Get down, make love
Ray D O'Gaga
Royalty: 1259 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 17:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zebonka12 wrote:

Thing is I don't care for semantics like "should it be called Queen anymore" and I don't care how much money they rake in. I was only ever in this shit for the music - nothing else. If you're spending so much time worrying about how corporate they became, you've no one but yourself to blame because you *bought* their stuff, right?
Don't rag on about how materialistic and hypocritical a group becomes when they did it with our money. Personally, I think for giving me songs like Bijou, The Prophet's Song and Save Me, they can be as fucking corporate as they want!


To borrow a phrase, "sheer bloody poetry". And hooray for the dose of reality.


Blow it out your ass.
AlexRocks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1358 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 19:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thank god they became a coporoate entity! That means that their l.p.s will stay in print and they might make more! What's wrong with that and trying to make as much money as possible?! I am more scared of the people who don't want to make money! By the way! If you have any dollar that you don't want...give it to me!

j_stone2525 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 51 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 21:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



j_stone2525 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 51 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 21:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Haystacks Calhoun wrote:

Queen has been a corporate entity for over 20 years.....

Are you just now noticing, or are you just trying to be difficult?



Someone with a brain.

rc user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 65 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Feb 06, 21:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

First of all, music is a business.
That's the first thing you should understand about your favorite band. Yes, they do it because they love it, but also because they need to make a living. trust me, I'm a musician. A classically trained one- not a rock star. (psh I wish)

But in addition, I think acts like Britney Spears (NOT Paul Rodgers) cheapen the prestige and legendary music associated with Queen. That's what ruins Queen's legacy. Not corporate greed. Every band has a record label- they have to. The record label basically backs the band and pays for studio time, marketing, etcetera. Without them the band would be nothing.


that's just my 2 cents, you're free to disagree.