|
Post by swisscheese on Jan 18, 2016 16:15:04 GMT
Hi guys,
I am aware that the band management has been criticised over the years. What we must acknowledege is that though the management might not suit artists who like to have a mystique and credibility, that is not what Quo are. They need a publicity team who keep them in the public eye and maximise exposure because the music media will not do that for them. Quo's PR team is excellent at making sure Quo get plenty of publicity. Remember, Quo are entertainers first and foremost and therefore have a need to be promoted in show business rather than in a false and pretentious serious manner. That would not make sense or fit the image.
Simon Porter has a flare for seeing opportunities to market and brand Quo as a fun-loving and not too self-conscious act. That is what endears them as a great British institution. When I visit the UK I think of red post boxes, Buckingham Palace, Bullseye, Jim Davidson, fish and chips etc. Francis and Richard are on that list.
I see that a minority expect a management who promote the band in a cool rock star way. That is not what this band is about and hasn't been since 1976. David Walker said nobody analyses Quo music and he was hitting the nail on the head. Quo are about hits, pop melodies and hooks with guitars underneath. No need to say heavy or hard rock should be their label when that is clearly a misconception.
Quo's use of social media is an example of how to mobilise many to buy product and keep a sense of fun at the same time. I am looking forward to more of Simon's projects as the year unfolds!
See you out there somewhere soon...
|
|
|
Post by madtom on Jan 18, 2016 16:21:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by granny on Jan 18, 2016 16:33:12 GMT
Excellent English Swiss Cheese.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2016 18:47:38 GMT
Summer season at the end of the pier beckons . The Krankies...The Grumbleweeds......and Status Quo featuring original members ....
|
|
|
Post by americanquo on Jan 18, 2016 19:52:39 GMT
Hi guys,
I am aware that the band management has been criticised over the years. What we must acknowledege is that though the management might not suit artists who like to have a mystique and credibility, that is not what Quo are. They need a publicity team who keep them in the public eye and maximise exposure because the music media will not do that for them. Quo's PR team is excellent at making sure Quo get plenty of publicity. Remember, Quo are entertainers first and foremost and therefore have a need to be promoted in show business rather than in a false and pretentious serious manner. That would not make sense or fit the image.
Simon Porter has a flare for seeing opportunities to market and brand Quo as a fun-loving and not too self-conscious act. That is what endears them as a great British institution. When I visit the UK I think of red post boxes, Buckingham Palace, Bullseye, Jim Davidson, fish and chips etc. Francis and Richard are on that list.
I see that a minority expect a management who promote the band in a cool rock star way. That is not what this band is about and hasn't been since 1976. David Walker said nobody analyses Quo music and he was hitting the nail on the head. Quo are about hits, pop melodies and hooks with guitars underneath. No need to say heavy or hard rock should be their label when that is clearly a misconception.
Quo's use of social media is an example of how to mobilise many to buy product and keep a sense of fun at the same time. I am looking forward to more of Simon's projects as the year unfolds!
See you out there somewhere soon...
This perfectly explains why they never made it in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by markquo on Jan 18, 2016 20:56:29 GMT
More of Simons projects? Says it all really doesn't it?? Only one "project" that needs his attention,actually no thanks it doesn't,just needs Francis to wake up and realise the opportunity slipping away from him each day Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2016 20:56:31 GMT
Hi guys,
I am aware that the band management has been criticised over the years. What we must acknowledege is that though the management might not suit artists who like to have a mystique and credibility, that is not what Quo are. They need a publicity team who keep them in the public eye and maximise exposure because the music media will not do that for them. Quo's PR team is excellent at making sure Quo get plenty of publicity. Remember, Quo are entertainers first and foremost and therefore have a need to be promoted in show business rather than in a false and pretentious serious manner. That would not make sense or fit the image.
Simon Porter has a flare for seeing opportunities to market and brand Quo as a fun-loving and not too self-conscious act. That is what endears them as a great British institution. When I visit the UK I think of red post boxes, Buckingham Palace, Bullseye, Jim Davidson, fish and chips etc. Francis and Richard are on that list.
I see that a minority expect a management who promote the band in a cool rock star way. That is not what this band is about and hasn't been since 1976. David Walker said nobody analyses Quo music and he was hitting the nail on the head. Quo are about hits, pop melodies and hooks with guitars underneath. No need to say heavy or hard rock should be their label when that is clearly a misconception.
Quo's use of social media is an example of how to mobilise many to buy product and keep a sense of fun at the same time. I am looking forward to more of Simon's projects as the year unfolds!
See you out there somewhere soon...
This perfectly explains why they never made it in the USA. Its an obvious wind-up post, so in that sense its not worth taking any of it seriously at all
If, and a big if, it was however to be taken at face value, there are several obvious and deliberate flaws in it anyway.
1) The use of the word 'entertainers' needs to be looked at very closely. For example - the FF 'entertained' large sections of a very fed up, cold and mud drenched crowd at the Great Western Festival in 1972 during a time that they were just starting to reap the rewards of the word of mouth campaign and endless gigging that they had undertaken in their transformed blues/boogie rock style. They revelled in being cool by being as 'uncool' as possible in terms of the way that rock music in general was progressing (in both senses of the word) at that time.
This is a country mile from the 'entertaining' that CQ do at their gigs these days which is a commercially over perpetuated re-constituted, over rehearsed and stage managed greatest hits package to ensure that the management and present band members retire securely rather than risk everything by being too 'grass roots to their true identity and losing the 21st Century faithful who would miss their annual bop to RAOTW and who have learnt the words even to CUOY and The Oriental because they have been in the CQ set since the Pre-Cambrian era.
2) The irony of the use of the word 'unpretentiousness' The initial rise of the FF had so much of its success based on the fact that they couldn't have been less up their backsides if they tried. These days the corny gimmicks and publicity stunts and manufactured over imprinting of the original defines true pretentiousness.
3) The ignoring and complete waste of 90% of their own (very good) back catalogue in favour of stylised imitation of the original further exacerbates the impression of parody of that original
4) Its not 'all' to do with heavy rock - its true that Quo have always written great melodies in their songs, regardless of light or shade. However, it has certainly always been about the rock music first and foremost rather than being a comedy , nod, wink and wave parody act of what they used to be.
Its not that CQ can't do it, they can - they have written so much excellent music of their own Its just that they ignore their own product, at the expense of copying an original one and in the process have forgotten (or simply shunned) what the original 'entertainment' live stood for.
The Darby and Joan club is 'where its at' these days
|
|
|
Post by colmfoley on Jan 18, 2016 21:51:08 GMT
This perfectly explains why they never made it in the USA. Its an obvious wind-up post, so in that sense its not worth taking any of it seriously at all
If, and a big if, it was however to be taken at face value, there are several obvious and deliberate flaws in it anyway.
1) The use of the word 'entertainers' needs to be looked at very closely. For example - the FF 'entertained' large sections of a very fed up, cold and mud drenched crowd at the Great Western Festival in 1972 during a time that they were just starting to reap the rewards of the word of mouth campaign and endless gigging that they had undertaken in their transformed blues/boogie rock style. They revelled in being cool by being as 'uncool' as possible in terms of the way that rock music in general was progressing (in both senses of the word) at that time.
This is a country mile from the 'entertaining' that CQ do at their gigs these days which is a commercially over perpetuated re-constituted, over rehearsed and stage managed greatest hits package to ensure that the management and present band members retire securely rather than risk everything by being too 'grass roots to their true identity and losing the 21st Century faithful who would miss their annual bop to RAOTW and who have learnt the words even to CUOY and The Oriental because they have been in the CQ set since the Pre-Cambrian era.
2) The irony of the use of the word 'unpretentiousness' The initial rise of the FF had so much of its success based on the fact that they couldn't have been less up their backsides if they tried. These days the corny gimmicks and publicity stunts and manufactured over imprinting of the original defines true pretentiousness.
3) The ignoring and complete waste of 90% of their own (very good) back catalogue in favour of stylised imitation of the original further exacerbates the impression of parody of that original
4) Its not 'all' to do with heavy rock - its true that Quo have always written great melodies in their songs, regardless of light or shade. However, it has certainly always been about the rock music first and foremost rather than being a comedy , nod, wink and wave parody act of what they used to be.
Its not that CQ can't do it, they can - they have written so much excellent music of their own Its just that they ignore their own product, at the expense of copying an original one and in the process have forgotten (or simply shunned) what the original 'entertainment' live stood for.
The Darby and Joan club is 'where its at' these days
The Darby and Joan club
|
|
|
Post by granny on Jan 18, 2016 22:24:42 GMT
The Darby and Joan club is 'where its at' these days
The Darby and Joan club Probably about right as, apart from young Leon, none of them will see sixty again.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit on Jan 18, 2016 22:31:54 GMT
Is anybody actually defending them other than stinky cheese?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 0:17:12 GMT
It's laughable that a band member has to come on here and defend the management. But that is Quo in general. Laughable.
Let's not forget how Simon Porter got the job - the last manager died. Walker was an abomination for the band, but somehow he has turned into some loveable folk hero over the years. Much like Porter is becoming. He says what some fans want to hear - "fantastic" , "special", etc. And they believe everything that he says simply because is Quo's manager. All the contempt shown for the FF, they swallow it. Hell, if CQ fans can be obsessed with band members, they can be infatuated with management too... Anyone associated with Quo can do no wrong, apparently.
I realize that the band's "humour" is more important to some fans than the actual music, but I don't think enough credit is given to the music. Too much time spent on thinking up silly names for albums, promo stunts, which means the actual music itself is lost. Quo may be the darling of Radio 2, but that isn't down to the management's stellar efforts over the years - it's down to the fact that Radio 2 have to cater for older listeners, and Quo's contemporaries don't release singles (if any music at all) these days, so if Quo release a single, it will get played. No matter what.
The relationship Quo have with Radio 2 is iffy, as apparently, Radio 2 tell them what songs will or won't get played. While this is an understandable relationship to get into considering Quo are ignored by the majority of other radio stations, it is this thoughtlessness and absent-mindedness that has cost Quo over the years. Quo are no more better off because of Corrie, by naming an album ISOTFC, Quofestive or Bula Quo. It may have enchanted the minds of many at the time, but it has no bearing on whether someone buys the next album. The hardcore will buy albums no matter what, but I don't think that is the case for the general public.
The band should not exist to please people who are more interested in fun and laughter, and days out on the Orient Express. Quo could have had it so much better had they focused on being a rock band, WHICH THEY ARE, no matter how much some fans protest. They wouldn't have run themselves into the ground by doing tax dodge films, naming every album "something... Quo". That itself is lazy and despicable, and the management are the only ones to blame for it.
So, Cletus... care to respond?
P.S. Tell your mate Simon to go and work with Terry and Gerry if he wants to run a circus act. Or provide a demonstration on mental illness.
|
|
paul70
Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 257
|
Post by paul70 on Jan 19, 2016 1:42:02 GMT
.. .. .... .
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Jan 19, 2016 8:28:33 GMT
Hi guys,
I am aware that the band management has been criticised over the years. What we must acknowledege is that though the management might not suit artists who like to have a mystique and credibility, that is not what Quo are. They need a publicity team who keep them in the public eye and maximise exposure because the music media will not do that for them. Quo's PR team is excellent at making sure Quo get plenty of publicity. Remember, Quo are entertainers first and foremost and therefore have a need to be promoted in show business rather than in a false and pretentious serious manner. That would not make sense or fit the image.
Simon Porter has a flare for seeing opportunities to market and brand Quo as a fun-loving and not too self-conscious act. That is what endears them as a great British institution. When I visit the UK I think of red post boxes, Buckingham Palace, Bullseye, Jim Davidson, fish and chips etc. Francis and Richard are on that list.
I see that a minority expect a management who promote the band in a cool rock star way. That is not what this band is about and hasn't been since 1976. David Walker said nobody analyses Quo music and he was hitting the nail on the head. Quo are about hits, pop melodies and hooks with guitars underneath. No need to say heavy or hard rock should be their label when that is clearly a misconception.
Quo's use of social media is an example of how to mobilise many to buy product and keep a sense of fun at the same time. I am looking forward to more of Simon's projects as the year unfolds!
See you out there somewhere soon...
Firstly, why didn't you write this post with your usual Swiss slant accent...sounds much more humourous. Anyway,you obviously wrote that from your perspective of Quo management but I received the RAOTW remix cd today and from just reading the inner sleeve..which is I guess approved by management, it reads...'By 1977 Quo were established among music's elite. Their previous 2 albums OTL and BFY had both entered the UK chart at no.1!! The Quo Live album still stands as a high tide of their achievements within the sphere of HARD ROCK. In their homeland of GB and across Europe (btw I must put Australia and possibly New Zealand into this sentence too), Quo could not realistically have dreamt of becoming even bigger.' Imo it was Quo's managemnt that failed to push this incredible live rock band into the upper echelon of the rock status world in The States. They were so much better than AC/DC for example,in 1977, but management missed the bus big time and the rest is history.
|
|
whoami
Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 288
|
Post by whoami on Jan 19, 2016 16:34:43 GMT
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by americanquo on Jan 19, 2016 16:53:31 GMT
Hi guys,
I am aware that the band management has been criticised over the years. What we must acknowledege is that though the management might not suit artists who like to have a mystique and credibility, that is not what Quo are. They need a publicity team who keep them in the public eye and maximise exposure because the music media will not do that for them. Quo's PR team is excellent at making sure Quo get plenty of publicity. Remember, Quo are entertainers first and foremost and therefore have a need to be promoted in show business rather than in a false and pretentious serious manner. That would not make sense or fit the image.
Simon Porter has a flare for seeing opportunities to market and brand Quo as a fun-loving and not too self-conscious act. That is what endears them as a great British institution. When I visit the UK I think of red post boxes, Buckingham Palace, Bullseye, Jim Davidson, fish and chips etc. Francis and Richard are on that list.
I see that a minority expect a management who promote the band in a cool rock star way. That is not what this band is about and hasn't been since 1976. David Walker said nobody analyses Quo music and he was hitting the nail on the head. Quo are about hits, pop melodies and hooks with guitars underneath. No need to say heavy or hard rock should be their label when that is clearly a misconception.
Quo's use of social media is an example of how to mobilise many to buy product and keep a sense of fun at the same time. I am looking forward to more of Simon's projects as the year unfolds!
See you out there somewhere soon...
Firstly, why didn't you write this post with your usual Swiss slant accent...sounds much more humourous. Anyway,you obviously wrote that from your perspective of Quo management but I received the RAOTW remix cd today and from just reading the inner sleeve..which is I guess approved by management, it reads...'By 1977 Quo were established among music's elite. Their previous 2 albums OTL and BFY had both entered the UK chart at no.1!! The Quo Live album still stands as a high tide of their achievements within the sphere of HARD ROCK. In their homeland of GB and across Europe (btw I must put Australia and possibly New Zealand into this sentence too), Quo could not realistically have dreamt of becoming even bigger.' Imo it was Quo's managemnt that failed to push this incredible live rock band into the upper echelon of the rock status world in The States. They were so much better than AC/DC for example,in 1977, but management missed the bus big time and the rest is history. Quite true. They were exactly what I listened to at the time, and exactly what I was looking for. I would have eaten them up, but never really got the chance.
|
|