INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE PURVIS

Georg wrote one of the most popular books on Queen, including an extensive run through all of the songs released by the band members (together or separated). This is his self-profile:

Well, I'm 23 years old, I like long walks on the beach, romantic candlelit dinners... oh, sorry.

Queen have been my one of my favourite bands since 1993 (favourite song: The Show Must Go On, favourite album: toss-up between 'Queen II' and 'A Day At The Races', favourite solo song: The Golden Boy, favourite solo album: 'Fun In Space'), but they were just a gateway to all the other spectacular music out there. I could go through a whole list of my favourite bands, but I'll just say that I love almost all classic rock – especially The Who and Elvis Costello – and a sprinkling of newer music, mostly by independent bands (The Decemberists, TV on the Radio, etc.).

Music is my passion; I've been a casual collector for most of my life, and I've got almost 42 days worth of music on my hard drive. Incidentally, as much as I love music, I was only a "performer" in high school: I played drums (inspired by Ringo Starr's drumming on Rain) for about ten years, and was even in a garage band called Tequila Mockingbird. We recorded six or seven (not very good) original songs, but we could play somewhat decently. I was also in marching band and concert band in high school, playing timpani, though my absolute lack of compositional understanding shone through when I couldn't even tune the drums themselves. The band directors more or less let me do what I wanted, and I made up my own parts as I went along.

And now, this is the on-line interview with Georg on 11th March 2007:

- Your book had been long awaited by loads of people in the Queen community. As it turns, the public’s pleased and the project has been able to comply with its expectations. Most publications about the band have been highly criticised so yours seems to be one of the very few with first-class quality. Do you think you’ve marked a before and an after on the field of available texts about Queen?

I hope so. Queen is one of those bands that you can't find a good deal of information about, whether because of things that have been widely reported over the years that have become accepted as truth (like the I Want To Break Free video killing Queen's success in the US, when it was really because of Capitol Records and Paul Prenter) or just because of lazy research. As interesting as As It Began is, it's an officially-sanctioned book, so whatever the band likes or doesn't like has a huge bearing on what the final product will be. My book's not perfect, but I hope that people start to realize that there's so much more about Queen that can be learned, and that there's always a huge market for it, so I hope that they get the inspiration to write what they feel without worrying about their opinions and if Brian, Roger, John, or Jim Beach will approve of what they say.


- Are you satisfied with Reynolds & Hearn work? Can you share some details about the process?

Reynolds & Hearn have been fantastic. They were my first and only choice. Back in January 2006, I sent them some of the stuff that I was working on and they almost immediately accepted it. I was sent a contract in March, with a proposed send date of September 30th, meaning I had six months to finish the book, so I really had to work hard to get everything just so. Even then, I was still submitting corrections, additions (including a review for a video that I had completely forgotten to write), and fixing stuff. They were in constant communication with me, asking for my approval of everything inside, which was great. They were very enthusiastic about the whole project, which really kept me motivated. I knew that they were the right company to work with.


- The fact that the publishers picked up a cover showing Freddie is, to me, quite a testimony on the unassailable prominence of Mercury as "the face of Queen". What do you think about that?

Well, I don't think that Freddie was Queen, but because he was the lead vocalist and front-man of the group, then he was definitely more prominent. I would have preferred a full-band picture on the cover, but I like the cover as it is now. I'm just happy R&H didn't go with a 'Queen II' / Bohemian Rhapsody silhouetted cover, or something from the Magic Tour!


- Queen are now an exceptionally commercial brand, even outside home: almost three millions of records sold the USA between 2004 and 2007, nearly two millions in Japan, and loads of merchandising products such as the toothbrush and of course the musical. They recently displaced the Beatles on the #1 spot of best-selling album in the UK do you think it may indicate the end of the Fab Four hierarchy on the mainstream?

I love The Beatles, and I'm glad that Queen have finally displaced them with the #1 best-selling UK album, but I really don't ever see The Beatles going away. In fact, I think we're going to see a huge resurgence of their music in the next few years, considering that there are plans to finally re-release and re-master their entire back catalogue, as well as having it up on iTunes. I have their entire collection on CD, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I have no problems in repurchasing everything again. (In all fairness, I'd be the same way if Queen ever reissued their catalogue with bonus tracks – and those horrible dance remixes from 1991 don't count).


- It’s undeniable that Queen (and especially Mercury) have had a consequential cultural impact, not only musical. But on the other hand, they’ve also depended on trends for much of their success; for instance, a large part of their fandom probably wouldn’t have heard about them in the first place if not because of football events. Do you think that the band’s triumph is entirely because of their quality, or were they assisted by a "right place - right time" blending?

I'd say a combination of both. In the early days, their quality was unparalleled. They were masters of their craft, but it was also the right time for their music to succeed, at a time when Bowie and other glam-rock acts were so popular. As time wore on, they translated their act to the arenas and stadia of the world, which I think helped; they didn't stay rooted in one particular sound for too long, and they were able to cater not only to everyone in predominantly English speaking countries, but in South America, Japan, and Europe, which is rare for most bands. Of course, as they became more popular, their quality (arguably) started to decline, because they were so prominent in the charts that they had to keep at least one eye on the popular sounds of the time.


- A book on David Bowie was the inspiration for yours. In the case you inspire anybody else to write a similar text about another artist, what would be your advice to them?

Don't be discouraged. Writing this book was a huge task, and it was very exhausting – I can't tell you how relieved I was to print out the manuscript and send it off to England (in fact, I celebrated by seeing The Rolling Stones that night). But such a task can seem overbearing at first. There were times when I wanted to just stop and forget about the whole thing, but it's worth it in the end. If you love the music enough to write a book about them, then keep it up, because the pay-off is so rewarding.


- Which are the upcoming projects in your agenda?

I'm trying to return to some semblance of normalcy now, and I've got enough work to keep me occupied for a while, though I'm starting to work on other things in my spare time. I'm working on similar books for Elvis Costello and The Who (my two favourite musicians ever), which is just as daunting as the Queen book because they've both been just as active, if not more so. I would love to work on an illustrated chronology of Queen (similar to 'Anyway Anyhow Anywhere: The Complete Chronicle of The Who, 1958 - 1978', by Matt Kent and Andy Neill), but I think that might be a little too much for one person to handle. Also, I'm trying my hand at writing fiction, on some stuff that I was working on before the Queen book became my top priority.


- As a (self-published) writer, I’m aware of the wearisome route a scheme must go through to bear fruition. Do you feel released after all the work? Would you like to make it a hat-trick and issue a video-documentary and a website?

Absolutely. The six months of intensive hard work between the time that I got the contract and delivered the manuscript was exhausting. As soon as I finished it, I didn't want to even look at a computer again (which wasn't possible, because I'm a book designer and work entirely on computers). I've been entertaining the thought of starting up a website, at least just for the book, but I'm not certain about a video documentary. It would be interesting, though, and something I would consider.


- Even though Bo Rhap is credited as the first time opera, hard-rock and slow-rock were combined, David Bowie had already explored that approach all the way through 'Man Who Sold the World' sessions. What’s your posture on those highly-spread and somewhat controversial "Queen firsts"?

As I mentioned before, they were always played up in official biographies. Bands like The Beatles, The Who, and The Rolling Stones were making conceptual (i.e.: non-performance) promotional films a decade before Bohemian Rhapsody, and Pete Townshend was the master of operatic rock (and, as you mentioned, David Bowie, though I must admit that I don't have the 'Man Who Sold the World' album yet). The Who even played in prestigious opera houses across the world in support of 'Tommy'. Queen were undoubtedly pioneers in their penchant for perfection and being productive in the recording studio, but so were The Beatles. There are loads of myths that I fear have become accepted as fact, which people are willing to blindly accept.


- A delicate topic is always the “who wrote what?” field. What’s your overall impression on that?

I think it's fun, and an interesting debate. Over the years I've definitely engaged in some banter about it, but not as much as most people because I only have limited knowledge in music composition and arrangement, so I'm not able to listen to something and think, "Ah yes, that guitar riff has Roger's fingerprints all over it". But I enjoy when fans are able to discuss something controversial and argue their points, because it's through discussion that we can discover things we'd never heard before.


- Have you received any feedback from Queen Productions or related individuals?

No, and I don't really expect to (though it would be nice). Apart from some interaction with Brian back in December 2004, when I initially sent him an email detailing my project and he responded with positive encouragement, I haven't interacted with him further, though I did send him an email telling him that the book was out.


- It’s somewhat sad that virtually every reputable and adequate research made about the band has come from outside sources (i.e. fans, objective critics and music researchers) instead of people who have been there. Why do you think that happens?

I think that's because the people who were there have to have some diplomacy and tact with what they say. None of the band members, apart from Roger, were very vocally outspoken in some of the more controversial things (like disagreements, band fights, etc.), and Queen never aired their dirty laundry in public, unlike other bands like The Who, The Stones, The Kinks. So I think from all official sources, we're always going to hear the watered down story, which is a shame, because it's just not as exciting.


- What’s the easiest part in writing such a book? And the most difficult?

The easiest part is sending away the manuscript. No, I'm joking. (Well, only partly...). The easiest part, I would say, was the actual writing. Once I got into the swing of things, I found that I would write and write and write for hours and actually enjoy it. But the most difficult part was the research and trying to make sense of everything that I collected. I tried to stay as organized as I could throughout, but it became very difficult after a while, which made it pretty frustrating at times.


- As far as I know, there are no pix. Was that because of copyrights or you simply wanted to emphasise on the textual content?

I wasn't concerned with copyrights (R&H have published a photo book on Queen, which I haven't seen yet but only heard about online), but, as you said, I wanted to emphasize the textual content. In fact, people were incredulous when I told them there would be no pictures; friends of mine who ordered the book from the UK Amazon saw it and were gob-smacked. They couldn't believe I wrote a 424 page book with NO PICTURES! Besides, I always felt that pictures in reference books were unnecessary, mostly because they interrupt the flow of the reading and because they don't add much to the text.


- Would you like to write more books in the foreseeable future?

Yes, absolutely. Writing is what I want to do in life, be it fiction, non-fiction, or scripts for various things (TV, movies, plays).


- Several gaps have been filled these last few years when it comes to non-Beatles research. In the case of Queen, later-days actual composers have been disclosed, a superb online concertography has been compiled and thanks to your book there’s already an encyclopaedic approach behind each song. What’s left?

Plenty. There needs to be a definitive documentary (just keep those Torpedo Twins away, please) like the Beatles' Anthology, as well as companion audio counterparts. As I mentioned before, there needs to be an illustrated chronology on their history. How much can the fans do with regards to all that? Of course, we have no control over what music is released to the public, but as for print material, I certainly wouldn't wait for something official to come around and expect it to be really good – I think we'd be waiting for a long time...