John S Stuart 23.05.2010 10:46 |
Lets get to the heart of the matter. "Golder's Green Hippodrome" Queen recorded for this live for the BBC. This was done using BBC eqipment and BBC facilities. The BBC owned the one and only master tape - not Queen. The only reason the gig was recorded in the first place, was because the BBC could repeat the radio concert at some time. After a number of years the BBC (under licensing agreement) decided (in their wisdom) to destroy the master tape. Even though earlier (edited) transcription discs were made from this tape, the full recording was never released. Under the BBC's "search and destroy" policy of the 1980's, the tape was actually trashed and theoretically "destroyed". In point of fact the recording was salvaged (with the full permission and approval of the Corporation) by an engineer - who later contacted me - and whom I bought this tape from. If I were to burn this - a better quality version would NOT exist, but, according to Greg, this is somehow not the case! No better version CAN exist ANYWHERE (or in any Queen, Brian or Roger's vaults) because THIS IS THE MASTER TAPE. I have NEVER denied that I own very rare pieces. I have been very vocal towards Queen Productions and have PLEADED with them to meet me. It is THEY whom are the stumbling block - not I. I refuse to deal with Greg personally. I do not trust him, there is too much history between us, and in all the communications I have ever been involved in, it has always been a one way street. In effect "I show him mine" but he "does not show his", and for this I am always cast (in Freddie's word) as a Pr*ck teaser, and as such, deserve to be to be treated with contempt. So let me turn the tables: Queen Productions are WELCOME to ANYTHING in my collection. They can have FULL access to what I own, without reservation. My PM on this forum is public, my email is public. However, I refuse to deal with middle-men. So I advertise here - If I am Personally contacted by Queen Productions, Brian May, Roger Taylor, or John Deacon, (and I am sure that CAN be arranged), and if they provide me with the guarantees that were promised - but not provided for my Wreckage material, I guarantee here and now that I will deal under these circumstances. PROMISE. In my worst Lloyde Grossman impersonation: "Queen PLC - It's over to you". |
Queen Archivist 23.05.2010 11:31 |
John, I'm afraid you're still living in a bit of a Dreamworld there. You want John Deacon, Roger Taylor or Brian May to contact you personally. Do you think that is going to happen? Oh dear! I think probably not. Do you think that is a reasonable point of view or expectation? Look, in my posting I said that it would be VERY SIMPLE for you to go over all your old grievances again and dig up all that bad history again, and remind everybody again about how hard done by you were in the past.... and of course that's precisely what you've done. That stance helps no one at all. Never mind. It was, let's all be honest, totally predictable. Who here expected John to do anything OTHER than rake up the past again? I WROTE THIS... It is VERY VERY SIMPLE for you to now list all the reasons why you WON'T do that, why you CAN'T do that. You can sit there and cite all the bad history you and I have, and all the ways in which you feel you have been badly treated, and so on and so forth, for the next 10 years, but ultimately it will lead nowhere. Nobody benefits that way. JOHN, YOU, RIGHT ON CUE AND AS EXPECTED BY MOST, REPLIED THUS.... First: The tape was stolen. (It was NOT returned to me as promised) Second: It was widely bootlegged - and I made not one penny from those illegal discs. Three: I did not recEIve an official apology - ever. Four: I had to buy my own boxset. What was it Ian Hunter said; "Once Bitten Twice Shy?". So.... I asked you sincerely John. I put to you a reasonable proposal. But you don't want to deal with Queen's Middle Man, as you put it. You'll only deal with the Band members directly!!!!!!!!!!! You see what I mean? You are the most irritating individual to deal with that I have ever encountered. There just is NO getting thru to you, past your resentment and obvious bitterness over things that happened TEN YEARS AGO, and which WERE apologised for - profusely - as you very well know. You are unable to put the history behind you, in the past where it should be, in order that we might progress things for the betterment of ALL Queen fans. I think you are selfish foolish chap, with an unhealthy grudge that does you or anyone else no good at all. It is so very you though... that's why you and I get nowhere fast. I'll not bother again. I can rest assured (if I'm ever asked) that I did make a decent genuine attempt to reach a compromise, but you declined it - again. Move ON John. Move forward. How long you gonna live in the past, harping on about.... having to buy your own Freddie boxed set / not making one penny from those illegal discs / not receiving an official appology - ever, etc etc etc.....?????? I SAID SORRY 4 or 5 TIMES TO YOU, 3-4 TIMES ON THIS SITE, PLUS ON THE PHONE AND EMAIL. WE INVITED YOU TO THE FREDDIE BOX LAUNCH IN LONDON in 2000, AND YOU CAME. YOU LOVED IT. YOU THANKED ME. YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IN YOUR LIST OF "FEEL-SORRY-FOR-ME" BITS!! God almighty!!!! Stop harboring the grudge and resentment man. Move forward. I tried to build bridges with you. I failed. But only because you're too mean-spirited and miserable to take an olive branch when it's offered. How sad it must be to live that way. |
Gregsynth 23.05.2010 11:57 |
Why are the two archivists fighting? |
andreas_mercury 23.05.2010 11:59 |
"You want John Deacon, Roger Taylor or Brian May to contact you personally. Do you think that is going to happen? Oh dear! I think probably not." why not you fucking penis eater ..... you can be a conduit and arrange to this ...... fucking fat douchebag in sweater sitting in waerhouse all day wanking |
Gregsynth 23.05.2010 12:02 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "You want John Deacon, Roger Taylor or Brian May to contact you personally. Do you think that is going to happen? Oh dear! I think probably not." why not you fucking penis eater ..... you can be a conduit and arrange to this ...... fucking fat douchebag in sweater sitting in waerhouse all day wanking LMFAO! Brilliant. |
brians wig 23.05.2010 12:03 |
I believe Greg, that if you care to re-read John's post, he quite CLEARLY states "Queen Productions" before the names of the band members, so if Brian , Roger or John don't want to contact him personally (and why would Brian not - he replies to me often enough when i email him via his brianmay.com), then there's nothing stopping Jim Beach contacting John. He is, after all, the bands manager! |
John S Stuart 23.05.2010 12:09 |
Greg - you miss the point. 1: I have never received an OFFICIAL apology (by word of mouth or in writing). 2: If this is to be official - QPL can contact me direct. 3: I want everything to be transparent, open, above boad and legally recognised. 4: IF QPL do NOT wish to contact me (the legitimate owner) - NO DEAL. 5: I refuse to work in the dark, in secret or via middle-men. Now then, if serious - how hard would it be for QPL to contact me directly? |
John S Stuart 23.05.2010 12:16 |
Brians wig: I believe Greg, that if you care to re-read John's post, he quite CLEARLY states "Queen Productions" before the names of the band members... This is an artificial stumbling block. As Brians wig so correctly points out, I do NOT really EXPECT a personal call from one of the band members, but I do expect a bona-fide OFFICIAL approach. If I ever received any OFFICIAL approach (either by the band or their legal representatives), then YES; I will deal with QPL. As I said above, I will not deal with middle-men in the dark I believe, this is a very open and reasonable approach. Anything OUTSIDE this, to me, would be unreasonable. Noel Edwards impersonation time: "Deal or no deal?". |
andreas_mercury 23.05.2010 12:33 |
i wouldnt trust either of them but mister Stuart says the right thing and is right here - why trust the small man in the middle like Archivist, he is just a minion and of no importants. |
4 x Vision 23.05.2010 14:36 |
This is getting absolutely pathetic, can't you both use PM to have these "discussions"? To say you are NOT "dangling carrots" is insulting to the die hard Queen fans. both young and old who come here. You should both no better. To me it looks nothing more than you both using this place to list off all the material you know will probably never see the light of day, doing nothing but show off to those of us who would get the most excitment out of such material. To different extents you both have been priveleged to owning or having daily access to gems that you are perfectly aware the community here would relish. You should both be ashamed and should take time to think of the fans here who get REALLY excited by the titles you both enjoy boasting about, and try remember how it feels to be nothing but a fan who year in year out gets let down by the failure of such things to EVER come to light. I know I've gave up, but I still remember what it's like to read such posts here and genuinely believe that new stuff is on the horizon, to keep coming back day in day out to see if anythings has progreseed further. I sadly have passed that phase now, but I respect the new fans (and old) who still get that thrill. IMO... John, I have always found your Queen knowledge truly wonderful, but you are coming across as a tad bitter that someone else has access to such a wealth of Queen material and you don't. You seem to be grasping at straws trying to prove that you still have something of any significant value to him too. Greg, you should really know better and possibly just stay away, unless you actually want to answer the hundreds of questions folk here have asked you over the years? Stop abusing the position you have and stop acting like a spoilt child. If you think for one minute that any of us here actually apprecaite you rhyming off Queen rarity after Queen rarity for any reason other than to prove you've listended to it then you are sadly mistaken. Grow up. Get one thing right, this childishness does not benefit this forum in any way and you both should stop this nonsense immediately. The last two topics you have both started do nothing but make me appreciate and respect the QZers who have been SO generous in sharing bootlegs over the years, which IMO acts as the next best thing to hearing the material you two do nothing but chat about. The likes of SirGH, YV, Pittrek, P_Guru, Ginger, Pim D, Holly, Bokkepot... these guys understand that fans who come here are most likely Queen fans who truly cherish the group that little bit more than the average Queen fan and the fans who get most excited by hearing something new. I challenge you both to find a topic these guys have started that sets out to tease the community with size of their collection or to boast that they own something that nobody else does. |
cmsdrums 23.05.2010 14:49 |
Queen Archivist wrote: John, I'm afraid you're still living in a bit of a Dreamworld there. You want John Deacon, Roger Taylor or Brian May to contact you personally. Do you think that is going to happen? Oh dear! I think probably not. Why on Earth not?? Brian replies personally to emails to him (although more about stars and foxes than music these days) so it's not unfeasible. Do they think they are above us, and not worthy of contacting to make a sensible, suitable, business deal with?? |
cmsdrums 23.05.2010 14:58 |
Queen Archivist wrote: WE INVITED YOU TO THE FREDDIE BOX LAUNCH IN LONDON in 2000, AND YOU CAME. YOU LOVED IT. Who's 'We'?? I though the invite would have come from EMI and/or the Mercury Estate, so you are now (or were in 2000) part of those organisations then Greg?!! By the way, I, along with several other Queen Fan Club members also got invited to the Freddie Box Set launch (and still have the invitation and a laminate pass as momentos), but at the very last minute, the invitation was recinded to fan club members. They obviously decided that the places were better off going to champagne swilling record co. execs rather than plebs like me. |
John S Stuart 23.05.2010 15:23 |
Van Basten 9: A tad disapointed with your reply in that I too have donated to this forum (with yet more to come) and I have openly stated I am willing to "do business" with any "official" Queen representative. That is NOT bitter. In fact I can not see see how I can be MORE helpful - unless I pyhsically drive down to London and hand in my collection in person! What more do you want me to do? I have "been called out" by a middle-man, with whom (from previous experience) I do not want to deal with, and do not trust. That sir, is MY perogative. Just as it is my perogative not to trust Gary Glitter as my babysitter. He can apologise all he wants, but he would NEVER babysit for me again. Sometimes, one bad experience is all it takes. Why is that so difficult to understand? On the other hand; this forum is public. My email is public. I am NOT a MI5, Brian May or Salmond Rushdie type figure. If Queen PL can not afford me the courtesy of dealing direct (which I think would be the professional solution), then they can sod-off. So for the sake of all Queen fans around the world, let me say this once, let me say it clear, and allow me to shout from the rooftops: I AM HERE. QPL, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME ANY TIME. I WILL NOT BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO ANY ANTHOLOGIES OR ARCHIVAL MATERIALS. Sorry for the rant, but I hope that I have made my position crystal clear. Any attempt to discolour, misquote, or deliberately miss the point is outside my sphere of influence, and cannot be laid at my doorstep. |
Dane 23.05.2010 15:25 |
Maybe moderators can just delete these kinds of posts. It's such a huge shame these discussions thrive on this board. I hope that wouldn't be considered censorship but will be seen as a sort of spam-filter :p anyway, I hope I can refrain myself from commenting on these discussions in the future, but they just make me very sad. |
Saint Jiub 23.05.2010 16:33 |
This says it all: "If Queen PL can not afford me the courtesy of dealing direct (which I think would be the professional solution), then they can sod-off. So for the sake of all Queen fans around the world, let me say this once, let me say it clear, and allow me to shout from the rooftops: I AM HERE. QPL, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME ANY TIME. I WILL NOT BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO ANY ANTHOLOGIES OR ARCHIVAL MATERIALS." Apart from Greg whining further, what else is there to talk about in these two topics? |
woodi485485 24.05.2010 01:35 |
John, if you are happy to deal with Queen Productions Limited and you are keen for any material you have to see the light of day for us music hungry Queen fans, can I ask if you have ever attempted to contact any of the Directors of QPL directly? Brian for one isn't at all elusive, he reads emails that are sent to him, I had yet another reply from him in the early hours of Sunday morning, having sent him an email on Saturday. Brian is an individual who doesn't hide behind Management or a PR Team, he will deal with people directly. Please, please, please, for the sake of Queen fans, put your dispute with GB behind you (in my opinion he appears very unprofessional) email Brian, explain your position to him, I am sure he will respond to you and you will hopefully then get some positive process underway with QPL. Please, give it a go. |
Holly2003 24.05.2010 02:04 |
That's not a bad idea. Except ... I have a feeling Roger might be more reasonable than Brian about these things. Brian's comments re: We WIll Rock You (Now Queen Rocks Montreal) suggest he has a chip on his shoulder about others owning the rights to Queen recordings. |
John S Stuart 24.05.2010 02:17 |
woodi485485: If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans. |
YourValentine 24.05.2010 02:43 |
Queen Archivist wrote: John, I'm afraid you're still living in a bit of a Dreamworld there. You want John Deacon, Roger Taylor or Brian May to contact you personally. Do you think that is going to happen? Oh dear! I think probably not. Do you think that is a reasonable point of view or expectation? Look, in my posting I said that it would be VERY SIMPLE for you to go over all your old grievances again and dig up all that bad history again, and remind everybody again about how hard done by you were in the past.... and of course that's precisely what you've done. That stance helps no one at all. Never mind. It was, let's all be honest, totally predictable. Who here expected John to do anything OTHER than rake up the past again? I WROTE THIS... It is VERY VERY SIMPLE for you to now list all the reasons why you WON'T do that, why you CAN'T do that. You can sit there and cite all the bad history you and I have, and all the ways in which you feel you have been badly treated, and so on and so forth, for the next 10 years, but ultimately it will lead nowhere. Nobody benefits that way. JOHN, YOU, RIGHT ON CUE AND AS EXPECTED BY MOST, REPLIED THUS.... First: The tape was stolen. (It was NOT returned to me as promised) Second: It was widely bootlegged - and I made not one penny from those illegal discs. Three: I did not recEIve an official apology - ever. Four: I had to buy my own boxset. What was it Ian Hunter said; "Once Bitten Twice Shy?". So.... I asked you sincerely John. I put to you a reasonable proposal. But you don't want to deal with Queen's Middle Man, as you put it. You'll only deal with the Band members directly!!!!!!!!!!! You see what I mean? You are the most irritating individual to deal with that I have ever encountered. There just is NO getting thru to you, past your resentment and obvious bitterness over things that happened TEN YEARS AGO, and which WERE apologised for - profusely - as you very well know. You are unable to put the history behind you, in the past where it should be, in order that we might progress things for the betterment of ALL Queen fans. I think you are selfish foolish chap, with an unhealthy grudge that does you or anyone else no good at all. It is so very you though... that's why you and I get nowhere fast. I'll not bother again. I can rest assured (if I'm ever asked) that I did make a decent genuine attempt to reach a compromise, but you declined it - again. Move ON John. Move forward. How long you gonna live in the past, harping on about.... having to buy your own Freddie boxed set / not making one penny from those illegal discs / not receiving an official appology - ever, etc etc etc.....?????? I SAID SORRY 4 or 5 TIMES TO YOU, 3-4 TIMES ON THIS SITE, PLUS ON THE PHONE AND EMAIL. WE INVITED YOU TO THE FREDDIE BOX LAUNCH IN LONDON in 2000, AND YOU CAME. YOU LOVED IT. YOU THANKED ME. YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IN YOUR LIST OF "FEEL-SORRY-FOR-ME" BITS!! God almighty!!!! Stop harboring the grudge and resentment man. Move forward. I tried to build bridges with you. I failed. But only because you're too mean-spirited and miserable to take an olive branch when it's offered. How sad it must be to live that way. ------------------------------------------------- Greg, please read John's posting again. He said in no uncertain terms that he is willing to speak to any official representative of Queen Productions but he won't speak with you. Why this is bitter is beyond my understanding. For years we all have seen the abuse and insults you heaped on John Stuart on this very forum. If I were in his boots I would never speak to you ever again in my life, as well. Over and over again he offered peace to you and offered to bury the hatchet only to earn more abuse and insults from you. Please do not believe that we did not see this. Now you try to switch the truth and try to make John look like he is the unreasonable and bitter type - while in fact you have treated him with no respect at all over a very long time. You may think that a web forum is an alternate reality and your postings here have no relation to real life but that is totally untrue. John Stuart is a normal person, a father and grandfather like everybody else with normal feelings, who just happens to own a very valuable collection of Queen recordings. He is not rich, he is just a very dedicated collector and as a private person he must have been devastated to be ripped off by reps of his favourite band with no official apology and no financial compensation for the loss of his tape. However, he is still willing to talk to QPL, he is just not willing to talk to you - after all you said here on the board for all the world to see. I remember very well how you described John's invitation to the Freddie launch party last time you mentioned it and I won't repeat what you said because it's really not necessary to add more insult to injustice. But this post alone would have been enough for me to never cross your path ever again. There are limits for a person with self respect. As to the idea that John has some sort of moral obligation to make his collection available for the fans: there is none imo. While the rest of us spent our money on vacation or a new car, John spent a small fortune on rare Queen recordings. He did not have to post his knowledge on Queenzone, he could just as well sit back and enjoy his collection and never expose himself to all the insults and bad feelings that often occur when people are frustrated because they cannot obtain something they want really badly. We, the fans, would be happy if some of the rare recordings would be made available but if John's collection never sees the light of day I can say for myself that I am not blaming John - I am blaming you and your unprofessional attitude. |
andreas_mercury 24.05.2010 02:58 |
"If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans." you lazy fucking shit ...... you should smell like popcorn the way you sit in your cardigon and sweat over your precious recording ... GOLLUM. |
Penetration_Guru 24.05.2010 03:14 |
Andreas, what exactly do you think you're contributing? Does that seem likely to move us all forward? |
woodi485485 24.05.2010 03:16 |
John, you wrote- woodi485485: If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans. I think that sort of attitude is poor and such an approach would be as unprofessional as Greg's attempts to deal with you in a Public Forum. In the words of Freddie at Milton Keynes, 'It's only a bloody record, people get so excited about these things' |
inu-liger 24.05.2010 03:22 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Andreas, what exactly do you think you're contributing? Does that seem likely to move us all forward? =============================== Agreed. Your (Andreas) egging people on to continue their spats is very detrimental to our cause. |
Holly2003 24.05.2010 03:30 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans." you lazy fucking shit ...... you should smell like popcorn the way you sit in your cardigon and sweat over your precious recording ... GOLLUM. ________________________________________________________________________________ Why not post a list of what you've shared on this forum. Might be an interesting read. Or non-read, as the case may be. |
pittrek 24.05.2010 04:07 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans." you lazy fucking shit ...... you should smell like popcorn the way you sit in your cardigon and sweat over your precious recording ... GOLLUM.Do you have some sort of mental problems ? |
inu-liger 24.05.2010 04:25 |
No, I think he's on drugs just the rest of his lot. |
John S Stuart 24.05.2010 05:29 |
Andreas: I am more than happy to share, I am more than happy to work with QPL, I have approached QPL many times, but (IMO) Queen PL are a stone-faced outfit, who are not interested in my (or any other) archival material. Everyone in here has acces to Google,and Brian May's personal forum, so I do not think it would be a bad move for as many people as possible to spread the above message. If you really feel like contributing something why don't you (and other 'zoners) write a personal response to QPL or Mr. May? After all a chorus of voices is louder than the lone voice in the wilderness. Perhaps, when this stone-wall is personally experienced, you may be a little more empathetic. |
andreas_mercury 24.05.2010 05:54 |
you just sound to be asking everyone to do your letterwriting and it makes no sense, i am not the man with the cards in his hand, why should i place bets on your behalf |
Mr. Scully 24.05.2010 08:53 |
I haven't been to this board for months but it seems like it's fun, just like in the old times :-D I see nothing wrong about John's proposal. In fact, I really like this kind of attitude. "Deal with me officially or fuck off" - seriously, I'd do the same thing. Why bother with middle men whom he doesn't trust? Why couldn't Brian and Roger stop saving foxes or sunbathing on their yachts and find out what recordings they might need for the anthology? Because they don't care? Oh well... then bad luck. It's their problem, not JSS's problem. |
andreas_mercury 24.05.2010 10:11 |
actually when you word it like "deal with me official or fuck off" it makes more sense i do not understand why he isn't just write that himself |
Fone Bone 25.05.2010 05:13 |
JSS's stance seems perfectly reasonable. GB's appeal on an open forum is a tactic to induce reactions such as Andreas' and put pressure on John. John is willing to talk, he just minds who he's talking to. It's only fair Hopefully the Universal deal will force QPL into putting out better product, but also being more professional about the way to do business |
thomasquinn 32989 25.05.2010 05:38 |
@John S. Stuart: From a formal point of view, it would probably be most effective to be the bigger man and address a formal letter with your proposal to QP, and sending this letter through registered mail (to ensure that your letter is not binned by some underling like the great GB himself), ideally to Brian May's management (that might be Phil Symes). That way, an official channel of communication is open, the proposal is formal, and you avoid self-obsessed lower-echelon individuals like Brooks. |
Benn Kempster 25.05.2010 05:53 |
andreas mercury, re: >actually when you word it like "deal with me official or fuck off" it makes more sense i do not understand why he isn't just write that himself At this point, you're better off opting right out of this discussion; you're making yourself look more and more llike a buffoon with every post you leave here. I guess there's a language barrier "thing" at work here, but your unintelligible drivel is just a pain in the arse for everyone to have to scroll past. Thanks for popping in. Bye. |
Benn Kempster 25.05.2010 06:02 |
Thomas Qiunn, re: >That way, an official channel of communication is open, the proposal is formal, and you avoid self-obsessed lower-echelon individuals like Brooks. But if I read it correctly, QPL have known of John's "whereabouts" for a number of years and have made the conscious decision NOT to get in contact with him. Even when John has made the first move and provided material (Wreckage) to them, they have made the conscious decision to then (effectively) steal from him. I don't see any reason at all why John should do any more than he is doing now; they know him, where he is and how to get hold of him. The fact is that doing so would be egg on the face for QPL and an admission that they have not got what they purport to have and all the years of denial (Hangman for instance) would leave them looking completely ridiculous. Even more, should QPL and John finally strike a private deal, our Greggy-Weggy would become even more marginalised -made than he already is; in fact, perhaps there is a ready-made replacement for the incumbent Archivist just waiting on the sidelines who, in fact, has his finger more closely on the pulse.........? |
Mr. Scully 25.05.2010 08:14 |
Not sure if Phil Symes is THE right way of contacting QPL... from my own experiences he is very very very unreliable. Why not contact Jim/Anne directly? From my point of view this is more about teasing Greg than a seriously meant offer but it's fun anyway :-) |
andreas_mercury 25.05.2010 11:25 |
lol who is this Benn douche even? as if he controls the discussion i like the cute "bye" as if he thinks to me stop posting. that wont happen, sorry darling ..... move on to the next |
ok.computer 25.05.2010 15:29 |
I posted this on the other thread too, but what the hell: As someone was saying up the page, it's time ALL this stuff was out. I respect the right of people to have collections, etc, but time is moving on. The audience interest is dwindling. At this point now, if I were Queen, I'd be looking at making the whole kit and caboodle available online and for free. The band and their hangers-on have made absolutely enough money to do them, and their next generation. What is the point of constantly hinting and teasing at stuff that could/may/should be in the archives when it patently will not ever see the light of day? If all this material were really, really commercially viable, it would already be out there. It's nearly 20 years since Freddie died. I might have been interested in shelling out big dough for archive material when I was in my late-20s. But I now have a mortgage, and so do many of my peers. Other things come first. Increasingly, I don't see the commercial viability of all this stuff. What would I propose? Well I remember a half-assed attempt by QPL to do a 100 Best Bootlegs thing - a fiver a time or something? Why bother? Get as much together as possible, get it into some sort of high quality, digital format, and get in bloody online for once and for all. The market was there 10 years ago - it ain't there now. It will be "less" there in ten years time. These anthologies or archive materials are becoming less and less relevant. The digital download generation coming up behind me - I'm in my mid-thirties now, and have been coming to this board for years, only to see this Archivist fellow exceed his brief on here - are not in the slightest bit interested in a lovely big container with lots of CDs and DVDs any more. The Archivist - if he has done it properly - has done his job. Move on. Get the site up, get the stuff on it, work with the fans to allow contributions, filter them for quality, and let's leave a proper, accessible, digital and FREE archive - it, at least, has half a chance of strengthening the Queen legacy, and leaving something behind for fans and newcomers alike. John, just to add, I do not denigrate your commitment, your loyalty or your knowledge. But even you must realise that the number of people interested in what you have in your own archive is dwindling and dwindling fast. There ARE Queenies coming up behind us in the next generation, but I do a lot of marketing work - and while I know they are hungry for material, this next generation MOSTLY - MOSTLY, I said - will suffice with the available album catalogue. Sorry to say it again, but I truely believe there is just a very limited - perhaps even NO - market to sell to any more. |
andreas_mercury 25.05.2010 23:54 |
finally an intelligent man who sees the momentom is all gone and that this stuff must get out now before we are all too dead or bored to bother downloading it. |
Nummer2 26.05.2010 02:11 |
I haven't posted here for months, but after reading ok.computer's post I must add something to this discussion. ok.computer is 100% spot-on. And I have proof: For 2 years I manage a forum for inofficial recordings of a different artist. That artist was on the road for almost 40 years and he has a huge fan base. Many of his fans are getting old by now, but a new generation is finding interest in his music. There are some collectors, who own loads of live recordings, but they are sitting on them and simply don't know how or don't have interest in sharing or trading anymore. Our website finally brought a lot of recordings to the public – up to 2008 there were only a dozen available online of maybe 1000! Now that we shared about 100 or 150, we can see a significant decrease in interest. The older fans are only interested in extreme rarities (which none of them will ever share), and the younger fans simply don't care for more and more inofficial recordings, when they don't know the whole official catalogue yet. Meanwhile I have heard about a couple of collectors, who died without sharing their collections before, and another couple simply dumped their tapes, because nobody is able to play or convert them. Another heap of recordings burned in a house fire. Many recordings were lost forever. Recently I got a new, uncirculated master recording of a very special concert. When I offered it for trade to a few people, there was almost no interest at all. Had I done this 10 years earlier, it would have been totally different. My conclusion in short: Get the interesting uncirculated recordings out while there's interest. The internet makes it so easy to share loads of stuff in no time, and people are saturated easily. New fans will show up, but they have so much to choose from, they won't care for an improvement of an existing recording or an obscure demo. They'll go for Newcastle 1979 or Hammy 1975 instead. |
pittrek 02.05.2016 09:21 |
I ate all my popcorn 6 years ago and I don't remember the end of this story. So - did QPL get John's Golders Green master? |
Barry Durex 02.05.2016 09:47 |
Now that's what I call a necro bump. |
Marknow 02.05.2016 10:13 |
pittrek wrote: I ate all my popcorn 6 years ago and I don't remember the end of this story. So - did QPL get John's Golders Green master? Highly fucking unlikely... |
brENsKi 02.05.2016 13:38 |
and why should they? with GB throwing his self-importance around |
pittrek 02.05.2016 14:12 |
Barry Durex wrote: Now that's what I call a necro bump.Yes. But it's kind of relevant to both the current "war" and the next Queen release |
mooghead 02.05.2016 14:37 |
It's a shame that the ones who suffer ultimately due to this silly squabble is the Queen fans, who the 2 protagonists claim to be. |
rocknrolllover 03.05.2016 01:00 |
JSS is a jackass |
Togg 03.05.2016 04:24 |
jesus... all that crap again |
rocknrolllover 03.05.2016 05:13 |
Togg wrote: jesus... all that crap again Jesus don't live here anymore |
Haystacks Calhoun II 03.05.2016 06:25 |
Nobody fucks with the Jesus. |
Sebastian 03.05.2016 06:54 |
It's a great song, though. |
rocknrolllover 03.05.2016 08:37 |
JSS has nothing in his collection, except for a pair of false teeth. |
Nitroboy 03.05.2016 12:44 |
Haystacks Calhoun II wrote: Nobody fucks with the Jesus. Sebastian wrote: It's a great song, though.A great bowling player too |
brians wig 03.05.2016 13:34 |
rocknrolllover wrote: JSS is a jackassYeah, i agree. JSS is a Jackass, sure he is. A complete and utter douchebag. Of course. He's a Jackass who had loads of things in his collection which were shared with David Fuller and who, as you may recall, broke a trust and SOLD them to other fans. No doubt you find favour with Fuller and his reprehensible actions for bringing those gems into the public domain, regardless of how he did it. Now who's a Jackass, Jackass?! |
Negative Creep 03.05.2016 14:03 |
|
Battler 03.05.2016 22:44 |
Frankly, enough is enough. I made some shitty posts in here recently and I apologize for that. Time to be serious this once. First, I agree Fuller should not have *SOLD* the material to the public. However, I am on the edge as regards the trust breaking itself. The fact is, Fanthology were hoarding material, teasing people, and released scarce spoils to the fans when they saw fit. Fuller felt that was not enough and more had to be released. And while I agree breaking trust is a bad thing, frankly it could have been avoided. Second, I think both John and Greg screwed up. John needs to get over his past grudge, especially since it's over Greg getting something lost *UNINTENTIONALLY*. Had Greg done an intentionally bad things, I could understand all this "I won't trust him ever again". But when all that happened was an unintentional mishap and yet this is somehow enough to compare Greg with someone who harmed a child, it makes the reaction way over the top. And Greg seriously needs to calm down and stop getting upset over this kind of things. While I can understand where his frustration comes from, by expressing it in the way he is, he's only making things worse and harder for people to be on his side. I would invite both sides to settle the matter in private and politely rather than by publicly filling each other with mud. I just wonder one thing about the collectors - why are you letting on on how much you have? If you just said nothing about how much you have and just occasionally released something, noone would be demanding anything, as they wouldn't even know you have anything more. Everyone would win this way. When you decide to tell everyone how much you have, it's obvious people are going to demand the whole lot in an acceptable amount of time. It's pretty simple - actions, even words, have consequences. The art is to predict them and set things up in a way that minimizes negative consequences. Of course, the fans need to be more patient, more tolerant and more modest as well. The attitude shown by fans here on this forum is often quite inappropriate - very rude, condescending, and unsatisfied. This should stop. Yes, QPL sometimes delivers releases that leave a lot to be desired, and sometimes collectors don't release all of their material instantly. You won't change that by childishly complaining. In the end, people should remember the virtues. The takers should first of all remember modesty. Greed just never has good results. And as the old Slovenian saying goes, whoever is not satisfied with little, is not going to be satisfied with a lot either. Something that I think has shown quite well with the '70's releases - first people demanded them and said they would be fine with any, of any kind, but then when they happened, suddenly those same people became very picky about the smallest thing. Mind you, I'm not saying the releases are perfect, but come on, something is better than nothing. The givers should remember altruism. You should give for the pleasure of giving and consider any personal benefit as a reward for your act of giving rather than as a right you are entitled to and that you will not give unless it is guaranteed. I myself do a lot of things - I develop an old PC emulator, often spending entire sleepless nights fixing one bug, I contribute rare old software to a forum's FTP server, sometimes even paying for it. That's just to name two things. And I never expect anything in return, and mostly I just get a few thanks. But those few thanks are the most important to me, much more important than any praise, money or other benefit. To me, the most important thing is to make people happy, and so it should be to you as well. And in the end, both sides should consider love and tolerance. I see both sides here being incredibly full of hatred and intolerance, and this often makes things worse than they should be. And this should not be the case. I apologize for the wall of text but I really had to say this. I harbor no bad feelings to either side and sincerely hope these issues can get resolved. |
matt z 03.05.2016 23:37 |
SHIT. And here i was thinking this was a new topic. It's obvious that JSS is in the respectable position of apprehension. Whether or NOT the circumstances regarding the loss were intentional; It's obvious that MORE CARE WOULD BE GIVEN TO A REPUTABLE COMPANY AND COURIER TO HANDLE THE CONTENT WITH AN INSURED POLICY (*if it were handled by QUEEN - the entity - directly) what were the nasty nay sayers smoking? Talk about trolling. There's just no BRAINS in handling this ANY other way. Jesus! |
brians wig 04.05.2016 04:08 |
Battler wrote: The fact is, Fanthology were hoarding material, teasing people, and released scarce spoils to the fans when they saw fit. Fuller felt that was not enough and more had to be released. And while I agree breaking trust is a bad thing, frankly it could have been avoided.It's a shame you feel that way. Fanthology had hardly begun and rather than hoarding material (much of which had been acquired by paying thousands at auction for acetates etc), it was being collated, cleaned up, videos created for some songs (which was the reason Fuller was even invited) - all with the intention of creating as complete an archive as possible, in the best quality possible before releasing it. More importantly, it was breaking down barriers between the collectors involved, who were gaining trust and slowly starting to share their own rarities. Fuller couldn't wait though and saw an opportunity to release a few things, gain some glory AND some money by selling copies of recordings some people had paid an awful lot of money to acquire LEGALLY. Ultimately what Fuller and his greed did was destroy that trust and destroy what had the potential to be the biggest archive project outside of QPL. Trades with collectors outside of Fanthology ended abruptly because Fuller leaked the material and those items STILL reside in private collections to this day. John Stuart doesn't even come on QZ anymore and whatever else he has in his personal archive which didn't get shared with the Fanthology group never will be. Same with the other members who still had rare recordings. THAT'S Fuller's legacy to Queen fans. He fucked it up for EVERYONE, YOU included, so get off your high horse and just think about what COULD have been out there now had "Fanthology" still been running today. |
bucsateflon 04.05.2016 06:38 |
John S Stuart wrote: In point of fact the recording was salvaged (with the full permission and approval of the Corporation) by an engineer - who later contacted me - and whom I bought this tape from. .Why he would contact you, who are you? anyway if this story is not a lie(unlikely) the "engineer" is the one to blame for all this shit |
matt z 04.05.2016 08:40 |
bucsateflon wrote:If it was saved from IMMINENT destruction, how is that blame worthy of someone to have acquired it for personal/posterity?John S Stuart wrote: In point of fact the recording was salvaged (with the full permission and approval of the Corporation) by an engineer - who later contacted me - and whom I bought this tape from. .Why he would contact you, who are you? anyway if this story is not a lie(unlikely) the "engineer" is the one to blame for all this shit |
brENsKi 04.05.2016 11:13 |
bucsateflon wrote:No. No. No. YOU still don't get it.John S Stuart wrote: In point of fact the recording was salvaged (with the full permission and approval of the Corporation) by an engineer - who later contacted me - and whom I bought this tape from. .Why he would contact you, who are you? anyway if this story is not a lie(unlikely) the "engineer" is the one to blame for all this shit the Engineer is NOT to blame. Only people to blame are Queen. They deemed it "rubbish" and threw it out. If they threw it out then it was NO LONGER theirs. think about it, you throw your refuse in a bin, and once you've thrown it out it's gone. Queen were irresponsible and threw away something - not giving a fuck for whether or not they had a master copy. Ultimately, this item would've ended up in public waste - that was Queen's intention. therefore that someone rescued it is NOT queen's business - THEY DIDN'T WANT IT. what the engineer did is no different than YOUR finding something in a skip - taking it home and selling it. you haven't broken any law. If you find a picasso in a dumpster - it's yours. if someone threw it away then they didn't want it. |
cmsdrums 04.05.2016 13:46 |
I'd actually be doubtful if it were Queen's property to start with - they may own the copyright to the material on the disc, but the disc itself was most likely the BBC's to do with as they wished (which in this case was bin it). |
mooghead 04.05.2016 14:42 |
What needs to happen is that JSS or GB issue, even if it just 10 seconds, of something remarkable. To keep us all interested OR to make us start giving a shit. |
Negative Creep 04.05.2016 17:49 |
cmsdrums wrote: I'd actually be doubtful if it were Queen's property to start with - they may own the copyright to the material on the disc, but the disc itself was most likely the BBC's to do with as they wished (which in this case was bin it).Queen/QPL wouldn't own any of the copyright to BBC recordings, and of course the BBC would have been the owners of said tape. However, that story is certainly "interesting" - how does a Queen fan in Scotland find out about said tape being saved by an engineer and why would the BBC support it? I wasn't aware by that point in time that the BBC were still chucking their masters out? Anyway, it sounds somewhat farfetched! More like a dodgy BBC employee rifled the archives and flogged a few tapes to collectors via auction or record collector or something. Stuff like that does happen - a cleaner once flogged loads of DATs of unedited live recordings on eBay and privately before getting found out and returning the unsold DATs (DATs were used through the 90's and early 00's and replaced reel as master tape format at the BBC). |
AlexRocks 04.05.2016 21:55 |
For who? You mean of some sort of QUEEN recordings? |
pittrek 05.05.2016 02:49 |
Negative Creep wrote:Not sure if the copyright laws are different in the UK than in the rest of the world but in most cases the BBC wouldn't own the tape anymore, only the sound recording on the tape.cmsdrums wrote: I'd actually be doubtful if it were Queen's property to start with - they may own the copyright to the material on the disc, but the disc itself was most likely the BBC's to do with as they wished (which in this case was bin it).Queen/QPL wouldn't own any of the copyright to BBC recordings, and of course the BBC would have been the owners of said tape. However, that story is certainly "interesting" - how does a Queen fan in Scotland find out about said tape being saved by an engineer and why would the BBC support it? I wasn't aware by that point in time that the BBC were still chucking their masters out? Anyway, it sounds somewhat farfetched! More like a dodgy BBC employee rifled the archives and flogged a few tapes to collectors via auction or record collector or something. Stuff like that does happen - a cleaner once flogged loads of DATs of unedited live recordings on eBay and privately before getting found out and returning the unsold DATs (DATs were used through the 90's and early 00's and replaced reel as master tape format at the BBC). You know that JSS wasn't "a normal fan in Scotland", right? The BBC doesn't have a problem with fans owning and trading 16mm prints of previously trashed Doctor Who episodes, why would they have a problem with a fan buying / owning a tape which should be destroyed? Also don't expect something like a written permission, more something like "Hey sir, would you mind if I sold the tapes which I was supposed to destroy?" "Sure, whatever, not my problem". |
Negative Creep 05.05.2016 07:45 |
pittrek wrote: Not sure if the copyright laws are different in the UK than in the rest of the world but in most cases the BBC wouldn't own the tape anymore, only the sound recording on the tape.That has nothing to do with copyright - the tape would be BBC property. I don't believe the BBC were still throwing out radio recordings in 1973, let alone any year after. I believe they started keeping hold of radio material before video. pittrek wrote: You know that JSS wasn't "a normal fan in Scotland", right? The BBC doesn't have a problem with fans owning and trading 16mm prints of previously trashed Doctor Who episodes, why would they have a problem with a fan buying / owning a tape which should be destroyed? Also don't expect something like a written permission, more something like "Hey sir, would you mind if I sold the tapes which I was supposed to destroy?" "Sure, whatever, not my problem".What is he then? Whilst he clearly collects "high end" items, he is just that - a collector. And again, it's unlikely it was thrown out. It's a grey area at best and hard to prove anything, and not something the BBC would ever bother pursuing. And that comparison doesn't hold water anyway - as you are comparing a complete BBC production, to audio material that involves rights/publishing owned by other entities. |
dudeofqueen 05.05.2016 08:15 |
Negative Creep, re: >>And again, it's unlikely it was thrown out. Not that unlikely - there are scores of examples of this kind of thing happening to bands. From experience, The Who had items like this in skips and studio bins materialise. The bands themselves had little or no idea at the time that material would be so valuable years down the line; as far as they were concerned, it was all just stuff created and quickly moving on to the next agenda item. And an external organisation like the BBC would have even less duty of care towards anything recorded by ANY band. |
bucsateflon 06.05.2016 10:31 |
Negative Creep wrote:BINGOcmsdrums wrote: I'd actually be doubtful if it were Queen's property to start with - they may own the copyright to the material on the disc, but the disc itself was most likely the BBC's to do with as they wished (which in this case was bin it).Queen/QPL wouldn't own any of the copyright to BBC recordings, and of course the BBC would have been the owners of said tape. However, that story is certainly "interesting" - how does a Queen fan in Scotland find out about said tape being saved by an engineer and why would the BBC support it? I wasn't aware by that point in time that the BBC were still chucking their masters out? Anyway, it sounds somewhat farfetched! More like a dodgy BBC employee rifled the archives and flogged a few tapes to collectors via auction or record collector or something. Stuff like that does happen - a cleaner once flogged loads of DATs of unedited live recordings on eBay and privately before getting found out and returning the unsold DATs (DATs were used through the 90's and early 00's and replaced reel as master tape format at the BBC). |