Rogers Untidy Bottom 12.05.2013 05:34 |
Well, well, well. How times change. How what was ridiculed a few years ago is now accepted as the truth. Back in Summer 2004, I joined the Queenzone for about a couple of weeks. How things were different back then. I was based in London back then - at the hub of the "action". I was still part of the "crew". There was a genuine desire to release the boxsets in 2006. I had access, as a friend, to a large number of acetates, unreleased songs, albums with different sounds, and so on. I posted on Queenzone about the original versions of "Queen II" and the "The Game" and was widely ridiculed by the likes of John S Stuart and all. Yes, I was the mysterious, slightly tongue-in-cheek "The Left Testicle of Freddie". I'm now back in my hometown in England, cut out from the action. Following a major falling out with certain influential movers and shakers within the bubble, I am now persona non grata. Just for the records - I was ridiculed for saying the "Seven Seas of Rhye" lasted originally around 4 minutes but was then cut back. Lo and behold - one of the two 4 minute versions finally appears on Ebay - link. For the records, the version of the song was not the "wrong backing track" - it was but it wasn't, it's hard to explain. I have been out of the loop for so long now that I don't know if a certain person still has the other 4-minute version (I heard it on a studio tape - don't know if an acetate version of it was made). Queen II did originally have 13 songs. Their existence has now been confirmed in books despite the ridicule the suggestions attracted at the time. I was told that "Deep Ridge" (originally meant to segue between White Queen and SDOD and was very Led Zep) was left off because the continuity of the sound wasn't quite right (in their minds). I thought it sounded great and lyrically, it sort of tied the album sides together making the concept stronger. It's hard to explain - sorry but been a few years since I heard the song now. "Surrender To The City" lasted about 3 minutes from memory and was quite poppy. For some reason, unknown to me, only the first bit of it (heavily reworked though) was included on the album segueing directly into FHLI. That section became part of TMOFTBQ. When you think it about, despite that song's many different mood changes, have you never thought that the last 30 seconds didn't quite make sense in the soundscape of that song? The reason for the non-appearance of the box sets is two-fold and I find the reasons unfortunate, especially for the fans who have stuck by the band up to 40 years. a) Lack of will by band members - the argument about incomplete archives is partly true but they're nowhere near as incomplete as suggested. They're now all old men and don't particularly fancy the graft in putting them together. I sort of get that but it's a pisser for all of us. b) The "Fanthology" members simply enjoy the competition between each other. I am not slagging them off - the amount of unreleased stuff they have given away free we should all be grateful for. They are fans first and foremost and all the rarities will surface over the next 20-30 years as they enjoy the gratitude of the general fans. Their argument about needing valuable stuff to trade is true. Neither party has any interest in admitting that the outtakes, unreleased songs, etc is quite as vast as it is. You would generally be surprised. I love this place and I love Queen. Do with this information as you will. I'll try to answer as many questions as possible but please bear in mind I am out of the circle now so some of it will be from memory. (PS. The "left testicle" incident involved a microphone. PPS. I know I didn't help my credibility with some of the posts I made the first time around but I like a bit of a laugh and most people seemed to enjoy the tongue-in-cheek bits I did). |
brENsKi 12.05.2013 06:19 |
hallelujah!!! finally something interesting and discussion-worthy turns up. my spin on this is - the possibilities are many:- 1. you're a mischief-maker with nothing better to do, feel a little bored and decided to have some "fun" 2. you're Mr Fuller playing the c*nt 3. you're "rocknrolllover" or "queenfan" under yet another ID being an even bigger c*nt than mr Fuller 4. you're Greg Brooks - being the arse he can be 5. you're genuine assuming that it's not 1-4, then let's go with your claims. let's ALL be open to the possibility of you being correct. Because, even if there's ONLY 50% of what you say exists - that's still a f*cking great shedload. And incomplete archives or not - and lazy old band-members or not - they MUST all be aware that it'll all leak at some point and when it does - their "golden goose" is well and truly cooked. so it's in QPL interests to get the boxsets out BEFORE the many more tracks leak. but they won't learn will they? - not while they can repackage another f*cking greatest hits CD. i hope this discussion doesn't create the usual deluge of "i want it all now for no effort mongers" demanding the longer versions of SSOR and STTC. thanks for opening a long-overdue genuinely interesting thread. |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 12.05.2013 06:36 |
The possibilities are many... 1) I was genuine the first time around and I am genuine this time around. 2) I am aware of the Fuller situation and I can still bet the Fanthology are picking their respective dummies back up after throwing them out of their respective prams. 3) I don't know who those users are - sorry 4) Greg Brooks is a vested interest but pretty much against his will. He's actually a very sweet guy and I know he's keen to share what he's heard. But, no, I am not he. Some of these tracks will "leak" in the Hot Space demo's sense but the vast majority of them remain unknown outside the two vested interest groups. Put it this way, I am sure all of you have thought that there is a mutual benefit to both parties that each other exists. Exercise your mind a little more and come up with some theories about why they tolerate the existence of each other and are in such regular contact. |
thomasquinn 32989 12.05.2013 07:01 |
@brenski: Definitely not #3, they don't speak English and use shitty online translators to post. I sincerely doubt #4 because Greg just isn't that subtle, Fuller is an egomaniac so he probably wouldn't pretend to be anyone else, so I'd call #2 unlikely, which leaves mischief-maker and genuine as options. I tend to believe it's a mix of the two. Still, interesting topic! |
amo 12.05.2013 08:12 |
I am very rarely inspired to ask questions but these posts really inspire me as a hardcore queen fan! Do you have any information in regards to unreleased material from the innuendo and post innuendo sessions in 1991? Any information would be greatly appreciated |
ANAGRAMER 12.05.2013 08:24 |
This is all very x-files If my of the stuff was worth hearing it would have been released IMHO (Cringe and Duck) |
CERATOPHRYS 12.05.2013 11:00 |
Mick Rock mentioned these two songs in his "Classic Queen" book. He wrote:"1973 August Queen return to Trident studios to begin work on their second album. For the first time they are booked in as proper clients. The entire record is finished within the month. Several tracks are recorded that will never appear: John Deacon's first song "Fly by the night", Brian's "Deep ridge" and Freddie's "Surrender to the city". Initial work on "Brighton Rock" and "The prophet's song" is begun. Very interesting post Rogers Untidy Bottom!! |
George Michael 12.05.2013 11:09 |
My question is: can you send me some of this unreleased stuff by mail? Or just one song.. please! :) OK, Dumb joke Now serious question: can you give us some titles of some of Miracle tracks that haven't leaked yet? |
mooghead 12.05.2013 11:12 |
Interesting stuff, its painful to know that there is material from Queen II that was never used but the finished product is so perfect you have to convince yourself that its exclusion is probably for the best. (I would give my left nut to hear the stuff that was dropped though....) |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 12.05.2013 11:30 |
I'm out of the circle now and therefore have no material I can post. Like I mentioned, the only thing I can offer are my memories of a great couple of decades. Things I can remember about the Miracle... 1) The original version of Scandal was a lot closer in sound and length to what turned out to be the 12" version of it. Before the album was released, the song had been pre-selected as a single and was shortened for the album. I *believe* the original version is still in the vaults. 2) What became "Let Me Live" on MIH was seriously revisited for a place on the album. I always wondered why BM and RT sang on the MIH version as I am absolutely positive FM laid down four verses for the song back in the early 1980s 3) The orchestral middle-8 in WIAWI originally had a synth-orchestral version of bits of SSOR as its middle-8 (sort of completing the circle idea) but was dropped. Again, I am sure this exists (at least it did when I heard it) I don't know a massive amount about Innuendo for two reasons - I was abroad when most of that album was made and I never really liked it that much so didn't really ask many questions about it. |
dowens 12.05.2013 11:56 |
Wow, interesting info about The Miracle album! I've always wondered why they hired, and still have, an archivist if there really isn't anything in the vaults. I believe there is and wish QPL would produce long overdue box sets! Love thus thread! |
dowens 12.05.2013 11:58 |
Love THIS thread. Friggin' spell check.... |
dudeofqueen 12.05.2013 12:29 |
We're thrilled for you, honestly. Thanks for going over the same old stuff again and uttering the same nonsense you dealt us under your previous name. We thought (hoped) you'd disappeared for good, sadly, we were wrong. FWIW, I'm thrilled that the members of 'Fanthology' have material available to them that no one else does or ever will do unless they see fit to let it out. At least SOMEONE is hearing it and its not completely lost. I'd dearly love to hear 'Hangman' or ANYTHING ELSE from the bands glory years, but, you know what, I'm not losing sleep over it. Queen only exists as a Greatest Hits enterprise now and the ex-members of the band and its management couldn't care less - they know that there will be a huge maret for a small percentage of the band's output and that's all that interests them. As far as collectors / fans are concerned - frinedships will out and cliques (meant in the nicest possible way......) will continue to unearth these treasures and whatever it costs them, they shouldn't be out of pocket for the masses now, should they? |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 12.05.2013 12:51 |
dudeofqueen - unfortunately, it took the appearance of an acetate to prove the existence of a 4-min version of SSOR. 8-and-a-half years after the idea/notion was ridiculed on this forum. FWIW, your analysis of the current business model for QPL etc is correct - it's about maximum financial reward for the minimum effort. What a pity. |
fr1986 12.05.2013 13:19 |
Nice to have someone like you here. Question, regarding footage, do you know if hyde park 76 has that bad quality that they do not want to release it, or how much material exists from knebworth 86' and, do they have the full show of japan 79???? thanks a lot!!! |
amo 12.05.2013 13:19 |
Do you have info on the post innuendo recording sessions? Thanks so much for the previous info |
Chief Mouse 12.05.2013 13:53 |
amo wrote: Do you have info on the post innuendo recording sessions? Thanks so much for the previous info Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: "I don't know a massive amount about Innuendo for two reasons - I was abroad when most of that album was made and I never really liked it that much so didn't really ask many questions about it." |
amo 12.05.2013 14:37 |
For clarification post innuendo ( after innuendo), 1991? |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 12.05.2013 14:43 |
Not that much Queen-related, amo. They were one important member down. |
amo 12.05.2013 15:06 |
Sorry I meant the sessions that produced mother love, you don't fool me and a winters tale, was anything exciting recorded with freddie that was exciting and perhaps remains unfinished? Also is there anything of interest from the works and kind of magic sessions? Is there truly a queen version of let me in your heart again? Thank you for taking the time to answer, I for one don't doubt your authenticity , and am glad you are prepared to share you knowledge with long us long suffering fans. Perhaps after so many years of dedicated support the remaining members of queen would perhaps engage in a project that would bring great joy to its most loyal fans! Much appreciated, amo. |
dowens 12.05.2013 15:07 |
I'd love to hear more info from other albums, if you can remember. :) |
mooghead 12.05.2013 15:44 |
"how much material exists from knebworth 86'" Are you kidding me? |
Thistle 12.05.2013 16:27 |
^ why would he be kidding? It's an issue that needs addressed, once and for all. Why poo-poo on an original, never-before-asked question? |
brENsKi 12.05.2013 16:48 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote:Put it this way, I am sure all of you have thought that there is a mutual benefit to both parties that each other exists. Exercise your mind a little more and come up with some theories about why they tolerate the existence of each other and are in such regular contact.ok, i'll give it a go: 1. the "fantology" are doing most of QPL's work for them - identifying the different versions of songs, locating and buying them and proving their existence 2. QPL could in fact be "intentionally" leaking the occasional tidbit, in order to "find out" via their own planted "insider traders" what else is out there that they didn't know of 3. "fantology"/traders don't mind doing the "legwork" for QPL because they benefiting from 2 (above) 4. via the occasional "leak" from Fullerist types the general proles (ie us) get the occasional worthwhile tune and this stokes up the interest in releases like the 40th anniversary rip-offs - in order to get more rare tracks 5. the whole thing keeps queen being talked about - so when some uninteresting pile of recycled crap gets re-re-re-released the hoards lap it up like obedient little stepfords...which keeps QPL's bank accounts topped up nicely |
AlexRocks 12.05.2013 17:25 |
"Let Me Live" was and or is brilliant SPECIFICALLY because both Brian May and Roger Taylor sing on it. Not that a full Freddie version would not be great but the whole deal with Brian and Roger being lead singers are what fascinate me with Queen. It gives depths and deminsions to the group that they might not otherwise have. Certainly in comparison to most other recording groups. I still don't know what "Fanthology" is. Why do people start talking about something that obviously the general public have no idea what you are talking about? |
waunakonor 12.05.2013 19:24 |
AlexRocks wrote: "Let Me Live" was and or is brilliant SPECIFICALLY because both Brian May and Roger Taylor sing on it.It's nice, but I wish they could have done it with a song that has lyrics that don't suck. AlexRocks wrote: I still don't know what "Fanthology" is. Why do people start talking about something that obviously the general public have no idea what you are talking about?A group of collectors of various Queen material who trade rare stuff with each other and try to make sure none of the stuff they share with each other gets released outside their circle, lest the underling Queen fans who aren't a part of the special circle get their hands on it. David R. Fuller was a part of the group, but then started posting some of it on his YouTube channel so that the puny mortals could all hear it, which made the Fanthology very very mad. That's how I understand it, anyway. |
FriedChicken 13.05.2013 04:29 |
Yes, it's true We are keeping the original version of Let Me Live with Freddie on all verses, the 8 minute Bohemian Rhapsody, Deep Ridge, Surrender to the City and the long version of Seven Seas of Rhye in our archives. We will release them when The New Order is ready. Strange how the Fanthology has been seen as some kind of Illuminati, while it's 'just' a group of Queen experts. |
FriedChicken 13.05.2013 04:30 |
And yes, I was being sarcastic. |
FriedChicken 13.05.2013 04:30 |
Or at least, that's what the Fanthology wants you to believe... |
gooddrills 13.05.2013 05:22 |
This is the most interesting topic that's been posted on here in a long time, thanks |
Holly2003 13.05.2013 05:54 |
Yeah ... interesting. Except we can't trust anything said here because there's no way to verify what exists and what doesn't. The topic starter could be another Walter Mitty, or an existing member of the forum posting under a different name or it might be someone from QP or it could be genuine. But ... who cares? Does it really matter any more? If any tracks have leaked out, a small number of collectors will trade amongst themselves for years -- possibly decades --. before ordinary fans will maybe get to hear a snippet or two. And QP won't release these tracks because they're piling up cash selling endless compilation albums to joe sixpack and those same gullible Queen fans who will buy any new release. I've moved on. Other artists are getting my cash now. If Queen ever bother to release anything interesting I might buy it but, that said, to my surprise I haven't yet bought the new Barcelona CD or Budapest or the Fred doc. I wonder is my interest in Queen disappearing? There's only so many times you can get dumped on before you say "f**k it" |
kruh 13.05.2013 06:19 |
What is the truth about Hyde Park 76! |
dave76 13.05.2013 07:08 |
Holly2003 hit the nail on the head. Queen keeps re-re-releasing the same old shit over again. I know they've switched label but not giving the fans that stuck with them for decades any descent material. The last 2 items i bought were the Days of our lives blu-ray and the 40 years of Queen book which were brilliant by the way. I let the deluxe editions of all the albums passed me by and downloaded the rare tracks. I wished they do a Queen anthology boxset in the same style they with the FM boxset in 2000. That was a jewel. I also beginning to think for how long i will be alble to hold on to Queen. Lots of doubts. |
TomP63 13.05.2013 08:06 |
I too think that Holly hit the nail on it's right place. In 1991 when Queen moved their catalague to Hollywood Records I for one had high hopes that the so-called vaults finally would open. But time had learned me that when it comes to EMI, Hollywood or now Universal Records, nothing really happens. I don't know who's "fault" it is. I remember the re-issues of Roger's albums, promises made that they had bonus tracks, non-album tracks and so on. We had plain albums released and again a great opportunity has gone by. We can endless debate on how other bands do release their stuff, I have passed on. I'm a Queen fan/collector since 1973, this year I became 50, I think I have to wait until I'm long 80 or perphaps long overdue and there it is, the long awaited Queen Boxset(s), and I'm overjoyed in tears, asking myself Queen? Queen, nah doesn't ring a bell........gimme Cliff Richard anytime.... As for the Fanthology, I really can't blame them that they have access to material i don't own or hear, in that matter if such fanthology really excists. But we all seem to have answers here, but can someone answer this question: why in the world were some re-releases by Universal in 2011 such a mess, why oh why hadn't Gary and Greg had more say in the second discs. Again a lost opportunity........ Tom |
brENsKi 13.05.2013 08:22 |
@TomP63 & @Dave76 isn't that what i said in 4 & 5 above? |
TomP63 13.05.2013 09:03 |
Yes Brenski, maybe you're right, but I honestly don't think that material leaked by Fuller or whomever isn't in that way connected with the re-issues as done by Universal. Simply because I never ever found the material as "leaked" by Fuller wasn't that interessting and most of the time his leaked stuff was in a horrible quality. My point is, a long, really long time ago Simon Duckett wrote a stunning piece for Record Collector, his article was so indepth as it seem he was actually writing from the so-called vaults. The article was written during the period that Hollywood Records took their chance for re-releasing all Queen albums. Again it looked on paper very promising, but the truth is, people talk about the opportunities, whole articles are written, books are full with so-caled excisting proof of material. But never was there a time to release that written or spoken about material. But if we take a moment and look back, there were plenty of occassions to release something worthwile. The Made in Heaven singles had the remasterd version of Beeb tracks, all as forerunner for the new BBC album. The album was withdrawn, "they" did not want to flood the market, instead of the Beeb album we got the Queen Rocks(1) as peaceoffer. I really do believe that the re-issues of Universal good have been done in such a better way. And you made you're point: 5. the whole thing keeps queen being talked about - so when some uninteresting pile of recycled crap gets re-re-re-released the hoards lap it up like obedient little stepfords...which keeps QPL's bank accounts topped up nicely Again I replied, and guess what, i'm repeating myself.... Tom |
Marknow 13.05.2013 10:04 |
The remaining members of the band will be pushing up dasies before anything interesting gets released. The fact is that they consider anything left in the vaults to be sub par, if it wasn't good enough to go on the album back then it's not good enough to be released now. The brand will not be compromised by releasing "B" material. The time will come when people like Rufus Taylor, one of Brian's kids and whoever Jim Beach hands it over to are in charge of the decisions. These are the people who might listen to GB or GT, the current regime have not and will not seriously consider their input. The wait Will continue for a long time yet. In the meantime the fanthology will continue work at unearthing and maybe leaking material at a quicker pace than QP, as it has in the past. Im 36, I'll be damn near 50 by the time anything "new" comes out from QP, fact. |
brENsKi 13.05.2013 10:30 |
count yourself lucky - i'm already 50! i gave up collecting new releases - 7" 12" cassingles cd singles, lps cds etc and old rarities in 1990(ish)...in all that time, i usually acquired something considered "rare" every 3-6 months in the 16 years i was collecting., these included larry lurex, eddie howell, ian hunter, KYA, SSOR, ANATO and NOTW on coloured vinyl, the complete works album box, hyde park and earls court VHS and others besides in the 23 years since i've managed to get hardly any genuine rarities ahead of the general fans |
Marknow 13.05.2013 10:44 |
Last thing I bought was a notw 12x12 mirror about 3 years ago, I no longer bother to collect memorabilia and will probably sell rather than add to my collection. Last release I bought was the remasters. I feel guilty about downloading dool documentary, which was very good, but at this stage fuck 'em. Paid for Budapest, just about.... Won't be spending anything on Queen for the longtime foreseeable, unless they bang out a decent DVD. We probably will never get another BD, they don't have any video on suitable stock. |
MackMantilla 13.05.2013 11:01 |
What an interesting topic, thanks Rogers Untidy Bottom. |
MackMantilla 13.05.2013 11:02 |
Is there more information about John Deacon's first composition "Fly By The Night"? |
Wiley 13.05.2013 11:07 |
People will believe anything, specially if it's clouded in mystery and conspiracy theories like the original post. Additional points for making it about Queen II, an era not as well documented as others, and for writing a lot, which also helps get credibility around here for some reason. Someone will refer back to this topic in ten years time as the source of "proof" for the existance of these rare tracks. Embarrasing. |
Wiley 13.05.2013 11:09 |
Let's talk about John Deacon's solo album "Man in the Shadows" instead. At least that one is funny. Or its follow up, "Alligators in my closet"... or something like that :) |
The Real Wizard 13.05.2013 11:34 |
waunakonor wrote:Your understanding is incredibly flawed. Toss the lies and preconceptions and read carefully:AlexRocks wrote: I still don't know what "Fanthology" is. Why do people start talking about something that obviously the general public have no idea what you are talking about?A group of collectors of various Queen material who trade rare stuff with each other and try to make sure none of the stuff they share with each other gets released outside their circle, lest the underling Queen fans who aren't a part of the special circle get their hands on it. David R. Fuller was a part of the group, but then started posting some of it on his YouTube channel so that the puny mortals could all hear it, which made the Fanthology very very mad. That's how I understand it, anyway. The fanthology is a group of Queen collectors who have, individually and collectively, been responsible for the emergence of the overwhelming majority of unreleased Queen material over the past couple decades for everyone to hear. Full stop. Breathe. Keep reading: Incredible amounts of time and money have been invested to acquire said material, and people like you merely need to point and click to download. With all that spare time you could be working on your reading comprehension instead of spewing crap about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. So stop. You add nothing to the discussion. Do you understand any better now or do you need me to draw a picture? The topic starter here is a very welcome addition to the discussion. |
brENsKi 13.05.2013 11:42 |
Wiley wrote: People will believe anything, specially if it's clouded in mystery and conspiracy theories like the original post. Additional points for making it about Queen II, an era not as well documented as others, and for writing a lot, which also helps get credibility around here for some reason. Someone will refer back to this topic in ten years time as the source of "proof" for the existance of these rare tracks. Embarrasing.well, i for one would rather be "taken in" by this new thread than suffer all the sh*t of countless album polls, and inane discussion going on round here of late. at least this is something meritorious of discussion. also, as i said in first response, if only HALF of what the topic starter claims actually exists, then there's still dozens upon dozens of interesting things still to be heard. It's better to approach these topics with an open rather than closed mind. you only have to look back at the number of new rarities that escaped into the wild...these were down to fantology and ex-fantologists. |
dudeofqueen 13.05.2013 12:39 |
I'm surprised that the venerable GT and the even more esteemed Greggy Boy Brooks haven't chipped in to this by now. You can bet your bottom dollar that they've both received umpteen private messages connecting them to this thread. I wonder how long it'll be......... |
brENsKi 13.05.2013 13:17 |
i don't think they can - unless to confirm the topic starter is actually telling the truth. it's not like they can refute what he says - because they run the risk (through a position of only knowing what queen have in the archives) of being made to look incapable c*nts. |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 13.05.2013 13:21 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Your understanding is incredibly flawed. Toss the lies and preconceptions and read carefully: The fanthology is a group of Queen collectors who have, individually and collectively, been responsible for the emergence of the overwhelming majority of unreleased Queen material over the past couple decades for everyone to hear. Full stop. Breathe. Keep reading: Incredible amounts of time and money have been invested to acquire said material, and people like you merely need to point and click to download. With all that spare time you could be working on your reading comprehension instead of spewing crap about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. So stop. You add nothing to the discussion. Do you understand any better now or do you need me to draw a picture? The topic starter here is a very welcome addition to the discussion.Among all the contributions to this thread, this is the best out of a quality bunch of replies. "Fanthology" are not the enemy - it's QPL. "Fanthology" members are torn though and it's completely understandable why. On the one hand, they're Queen fans - massive Queen fans. So much so, they've spent £10,000s acquiring the rarest material. They need to preserve the scarcity of the recordings in order to trade to get more rarities. On the other hand, they'd love to share it with all of us. They'd love QPL to release them. But the value of their investments will plummet, just like the FM rarities did after the publication of the box set. They are caught between a rock and a hard place, albeit with some fascinating, rare music to accompany them. Neither side wants to admit how vast the output of recordings, different versions, unused songs, etc are, even during the early albums. It doesn't suit them (as they don't want QPL to know they have it) and it sure doesn't suite QPL (who don't want to release anything any way). Two 4m versions of SSOR exist. "Deep Ridge" exists. "Surrender To The City" exists. The Game was originally going to be a double album but, somehow, was released as one of their shortest single albums. Some of the left-off songs are great, some a bit iffy. With the quality of songs available, how on earth did "Coming Soon" and "Need Your Loving Tonight" make it on the album??? Take the red pill and go back to your 2011 remasters. Take the blue pill and see how deep the rabbit hole really goes. |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 13.05.2013 13:47 |
FriedChicken wrote: We are keeping the original version of Let Me Live with Freddie on all verses, the 8 minute Bohemian Rhapsody, Deep Ridge, Surrender to the City and the long version of Seven Seas of Rhye in our archives. We will release them when The New Order is ready.Just for clarity, there is no 8 minute version of Bohemian Rhapsody that the band members made me aware of during my time as part of what we were all part of. SSOR long version has already been proven to exist via the acetate auction on eBay. FriedChicken wrote: Strange how the Fanthology has been seen as some kind of Illuminati, while it's 'just' a group of Queen experts.Some of the people in the inner circle thought Fanthology was behind 9/11. |
ok.computer 13.05.2013 14:03 |
You mean, they *weren't* behind it...?? Oh... |
Bohardy 13.05.2013 14:05 |
I'd love for this all to be true, but I somehow doubt it is. Here's a previous post I made on the subject that contains a link to the original thread from TLToF where these QII demos were first mentioned. http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1246544.html |
GratefulFan 13.05.2013 14:06 |
Fanthology and collectors are just as much the problem and the 'enemy' as if you're just an average Joe or Jane music lover. They're no different from any other entrenched power that wants to cling on to privilege at the expense of others. The pre-internet anachronism of a system they use is not written into the fabric of the universe, it's a self serving and self perpetuating operation that keeps the wealth, in this case music that we're all equally passionate about, concentrated at the top. I made exactly the point about the 'investment' angle in a recent post - and they're the only investors on the planet that seem to think they should be protected from a changing marketplace by fucking decree and the subjugated cooperation of the proletariat. Fuck them, truly. Other human pursuit like history, science, art isn't conducted this way. If this artificial barter system imploded tomorrow rare music would still be sought, discovered and shared - but this time freely and for it's own sake. Nobody ever expected any collector to empty their vaults, but for at least a decade the internet has created opportunities for new models of collecting and sharing that don't exclude so many passionate and aware fans so thoroughly. Not only have they not been taken, but the Fullers of the world and their fledgling alternative systems are absolutely crushed for their dissent. Personally I think there has to something a bit askance in the characters of people who hoard music in this day and age, but whatever. I find this subject increasingly depressing because it just reminds me how generally shitty and self serving people can be, and the endless excuses and justifications that prop it all up. |
brENsKi 13.05.2013 14:21 |
@greatfulfan except for one key point - without fantology where do the average fans get any info as to what other tracks actually exist? because the drip-fed nature from conventions doesn't scratch the surface. without the traders/collectors we'd know fuck-all about fuck-all we wouldn't know there was ON 4min version of SSOR - let alone TWO!!! and the things that have gone "wild" are generally down to collectors/traders letting us have them. remember the archivist's [ahem] "detailed" account of what live vids QPL had? what a load of bollox - even refuted stuff WE ALL knew was out there when faced with a choice of fantalogy info or QPL info - i'd choose the collectors everytime - they KNOW what they're talkiing about - as they have it or have heard it or have seen it whereas QPL are the biblical "doubting Thomas" - haven't seen it? doesn't exist |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 13.05.2013 14:28 |
Bohardy wrote: I'd love for this all to be true, but I somehow doubt it is. Here's a previous post I made on the subject that contains a link to the original thread from TLToF where these QII demos were first mentioned. http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1246544.htmlA lot of the stuff I posted was tongue-in-cheek - I seem to remember a post where Brian wanted to recall the Wembley DVD because he thought it was sh1t. I think I posted something about Brian having an opera album and Brian managing to clone Freddie. GratefulFan wrote: Fanthology and collectors are just as much the problem and the 'enemy' as if you're just an average Joe or Jane music lover...the endless excuses and justifications that prop it all up.What rubbish, GratefulFan. Have you ever been a member of the QueenHub? There's every single concert ever recorded on there. Dozens and dozens of demos, unreleased tracks, remixes and so on. All of the stuff you can get on there for nothing had to be released by someone. It's just the trading/collecting world moves at different speeds to our own desire for instant gratification. |
GratefulFan 13.05.2013 14:29 |
@Brenski: My point is that the 'choice' between QPL and the status quo collecting world is a false one. Any pursuit needs passionate and knowledgeable leaders, it's the virtually undiluted self interest that is arbitrary. |
GratefulFan 13.05.2013 14:35 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: What rubbish, GratefulFan. Have you ever been a member of the QueenHub? There's every single concert ever recorded on there. Dozens and dozens of demos, unreleased tracks, remixes and so on. All of the stuff you can get on there for nothing had to be released by someone. It's just the trading/collecting world moves at different speeds to our own desire for instant gratification.Right. Instant gratification. An objection to people stuffing music in their chipmunk faces for periods that can stretch into decades is my marshmallow problem. Imagine if any other human pursuit was justified in this way. Science, art and history hoarded for decades until every last ounce of value is wrung out of it for the benefit of the elite, and then the rest of us expected to be grateful that somebody 'released' it. I go to concerts and 'release' stuff to YouTube within 30 minutes of getting home because my joy is in sharing it, not playing Bingo with art. |
ridgewater 13.05.2013 14:35 |
Does footage of Time musical 88 performance exist? Have you heard the complete soundboard recording of it? Was "Time" actually performed or not? |
waunakonor 13.05.2013 14:37 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: The Game was originally going to be a double album but, somehow, was released as one of their shortest single albums. Some of the left-off songs are great, some a bit iffy. With the quality of songs available, how on earth did "Coming Soon" and "Need Your Loving Tonight" make it on the album???This is the first time I've ever heard about this. If it's true, then color me pissed. Where are these other songs? Tell you what, if they get released then we can have a thoughtful discussion about why some subpar tracks made it over come apparently very good songs. Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: Take the red pill and go back to your 2011 remasters. Take the blue pill and see how deep the rabbit hole really goes.This makes absolutely no sense. Where is the blue pill? I would love to take it, but no one is giving it to me. The Real Wizard wrote: Your understanding is incredibly flawed. Toss the lies and preconceptions and read carefully: The fanthology is a group of Queen collectors who have, individually and collectively, been responsible for the emergence of the overwhelming majority of unreleased Queen material over the past couple decades for everyone to hear. Full stop. Breathe. Keep reading: Incredible amounts of time and money have been invested to acquire said material, and people like you merely need to point and click to download. With all that spare time you could be working on your reading comprehension instead of spewing crap about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. So stop. You add nothing to the discussion. Do you understand any better now or do you need me to draw a picture? The topic starter here is a very welcome addition to the discussion.Well, my original post was made half in jest, but it seems that all your silly ad hominems and aggressive language are completely serious, so let's stop for a moment and realize that we're both fellow Queen fans and both passionate about the band. Now, what I'm not understanding here is what exactly this Fanthology is giving me. As far as I can tell, DRF is the only (ex)member who has given me any of their stuff.* The argument seems to be that withholding things from me means that the people doing the withholding can trade for more stuff to withhold. I don't get how this is anything but incredibly selfish. Agreed with GratefulFan wholeheartedly, as usual. *I don't know where Gregsynth is in this whole topic, but he has made many bootlegs very easy for people to access as well. For that I am grateful. However, I understand that there is so much more out there than his bootlegs, and people are being very cryptic about it. |
Gregsynth 13.05.2013 14:58 |
My two cents: I cannot be compared to Fanthology members or Dave R Fuller. I provide a service to people by uploading the live shows onto Youtube (for various reasons), but I can't take credit for any of the uploads (the recordings were provided by generous fans). Without the generosity of fans taping shows, we wouldn't have anything here. The Fanthology members spend thousands of dollars to try to acquire material. I can understand them getting upset when somebody leaks their material out (by breaking trust/agreements). I wasn't in Fanthology so I don't know the full backstory (just bits and pieces from comments here). |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 13.05.2013 15:29 |
brENsKi wrote: @greatfulfan except for one key point - without fantology where do the average fans get any info as to what other tracks actually exist? because the drip-fed nature from conventions doesn't scratch the surface. without the traders/collectors we'd know fuck-all about fuck-all... ...remember the archivist's [ahem] "detailed" account of what live vids QPL had? what a load of bollox - even refuted stuff WE ALL knew was out there when faced with a choice of fantalogy info or QPL info - i'd choose the collectors everytime - they KNOW what they're talkiing about - as they have it or have heard it or have seen it whereas QPL are the biblical "doubting Thomas" - haven't seen it? doesn't existSpot on, Brenski, spot on. Most of the people close to the fact know there were over 30 songs recorded for what became "The Game". From memory, RT is quoted as saying 20. Rubbish, there's easily 10 more and he knows it and Fanthology knows it. Hugely hugely creative period even when the first cracks were starting to appear between FM and BM (imho, BM never really liked FM but other people said I was wrong on that). QPL history tells us that "The Game" was recorded over 2 periods of time - summer 79 and spring 80. That much is factually correct but there were at least 2 more. Within the band, following the release of "Jazz", there was general confusion in what direction they should take the next album. Do they stay all "no synths" and "baroque and roll" or do they adapt to the times? Well, they did both - originally by "accident", then the idea of a double LP with two discs with different "Queens" on it circulated, then it went to the LP that was originally released. CLTCL, SASS, CS and SM were four of, from memory, 16 tracks laid down in 1979 in various different studios (deffo one in London and Ireland). You could imagine any of those tracks fitting on SHA right up to NOTW - albeit with different production. Very classic Queen direction. Other track names from memory were "Home" (ballady), "Only For Today" ("save the world" type song), "Earth" (rocker - not the Smile song), "Cut Me Up" (rocky ballad) and "(It) Seems Like Love" (acoustic ballad, from memory). "It's A Beautiful Day" was originally a gospel-like "All God's People"/"Somebody To Love" type song. I loved the original version abck then but I really like All God's People, despite the fact it appears on what I think is a terrible album. However, come 1980, the thinking had flipped more to FM and JD's approach, hence AOBTD, DA, PTG, RI(PJ) (Roger attempt at the sound) and a few other tracks, some of which wouldn't have been out of place on Hot Space. In fact, I wonder if some of the completed songs from those sessions were "re-imagined" for Hot Space. I think they might have been but we are talking 33-34 years ago and it was a mad time. I wasn't there when the decision-making process took place, but it's obvious they went all "new Queen" and consigned the rest to the archive. A great pity - the March-ish 1980 idea of a double LP with one 12" of old "Queen" and a 12" of the new "Queen" would have been amazing. |
fr1986 13.05.2013 15:52 |
Nice info, as i asked previously regarding footage, do you have any info of how much material "releseable" exists from hyde park 76 and Knebworth 86'??? Thanks |
Bohardy 13.05.2013 15:55 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote:----------Bohardy wrote: I'd love for this all to be true, but I somehow doubt it is. Here's a previous post I made on the subject that contains a link to the original thread from TLToF where these QII demos were first mentioned. http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/1246544.htmlA lot of the stuff I posted was tongue-in-cheek - I seem to remember a post where Brian wanted to recall the Wembley DVD because he thought it was sh1t. I think I posted something about Brian having an opera album and Brian managing to clone Freddie. . Of course you started posting a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff, I think I said as such on the thread I linked. But doing so only served to lower your credibility. You supposedly started off serious and then became a Wind-Up Merchant, which obviously will lead people to assume you were being a WUM all along. As of yet, there's no proof that you are not still WUMing it up. |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 13.05.2013 16:38 |
Bohardy wrote: Of course you started posting a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff, I think I said as such on the thread I linked. But doing so only served to lower your credibility. You supposedly started off serious and then became a Wind-Up Merchant, which obviously will lead people to assume you were being a WUM all along. As of yet, there's no proof that you are not still WUMing it up.It's tough to prove a negative. I sincerely hope that what I say during this and other threads puts you at ease. Regarding other questions, please let me make some things absolutely clear - 1) I was a fan but not in the "Fanthology" sense. My memory is imperfect, I didn't steal from the band or its other hanger-ons, I wasn't given any presents that I kept - the few things i was given have got lost in the midst of time as I didn't appreciate their future value when I was given them. I am probably more knowledgable than the Fanthologists but have nothing to show for it or upload to surprise you. 2) My main knowledge relates to recordings, outtakes and so on during certain periods. For 36 years, my life revolved around bands, record labels, etc - not exclusively Queen. I now work in a completely different, almost mundane field. My life is about my wife and kids. What I know is not encyclopedic but has both depth and width. Some of the song titles may not be remembered correctly but they'll be in the right ballpark. So requests about certain albums, whether something was videotaped or not and so on - I'm not the right guy to ask. The Queen "inner circle" is a fickle thing. One minute you're in favour, one minute you're not. I have been out of favour for just over 10 years now. It crushed me when I was no longer "needed". Let's face it - they have form when it comes to this. Dave Richards anyone? Paul Prenter was a cock, Peter Freestone was brilliant, Jim Hutton was sweet but a drama queen, Greg Brooks wonderfully anal but a nice bloke, Jacky I would have married and I couldn't really ever get the Anita thing. |
cmsdrums 13.05.2013 16:41 |
brENsKi wrote: ..... because they run the risk.......of being made to look incapable c*nts. --------------------------------- You mean they haven't done this already?!! |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 17:37 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: Well, well, well. How times change. How what was ridiculed a few years ago is now accepted as the truth. Back in Summer 2004, I joined the Queenzone for about a couple of weeks. How things were different back then. I was based in London back then - at the hub of the "action". I was still part of the "crew". There was a genuine desire to release the boxsets in 2006. I had access, as a friend, to a large number of acetates, unreleased songs, albums with different sounds, and so on. I posted on Queenzone about the original versions of "Queen II" and the "The Game" and was widely ridiculed by the likes of John S Stuart and all. Yes, I was the mysterious, slightly tongue-in-cheek "The Left Testicle of Freddie". I'm now back in my hometown in England, cut out from the action. Following a major falling out with certain influential movers and shakers within the bubble, I am now persona non grata. Just for the records - I was ridiculed for saying the "Seven Seas of Rhye" lasted originally around 4 minutes but was then cut back. Lo and behold - one of the two 4 minute versions finally appears on Ebay - link. For the records, the version of the song was not the "wrong backing track" - it was but it wasn't, it's hard to explain. I have been out of the loop for so long now that I don't know if a certain person still has the other 4-minute version (I heard it on a studio tape - don't know if an acetate version of it was made). Queen II did originally have 13 songs. Their existence has now been confirmed in books despite the ridicule the suggestions attracted at the time. I was told that "Deep Ridge" (originally meant to segue between White Queen and SDOD and was very Led Zep) was left off because the continuity of the sound wasn't quite right (in their minds). I thought it sounded great and lyrically, it sort of tied the album sides together making the concept stronger. It's hard to explain - sorry but been a few years since I heard the song now. "Surrender To The City" lasted about 3 minutes from memory and was quite poppy. For some reason, unknown to me, only the first bit of it (heavily reworked though) was included on the album segueing directly into FHLI. That section became part of TMOFTBQ. When you think it about, despite that song's many different mood changes, have you never thought that the last 30 seconds didn't quite make sense in the soundscape of that song? The reason for the non-appearance of the box sets is two-fold and I find the reasons unfortunate, especially for the fans who have stuck by the band up to 40 years. a) Lack of will by band members - the argument about incomplete archives is partly true but they're nowhere near as incomplete as suggested. They're now all old men and don't particularly fancy the graft in putting them together. I sort of get that but it's a pisser for all of us. b) The "Fanthology" members simply enjoy the competition between each other. I am not slagging them off - the amount of unreleased stuff they have given away free we should all be grateful for. They are fans first and foremost and all the rarities will surface over the next 20-30 years as they enjoy the gratitude of the general fans. Their argument about needing valuable stuff to trade is true. Neither party has any interest in admitting that the outtakes, unreleased songs, etc is quite as vast as it is. You would generally be surprised. I love this place and I love Queen. Do with this information as you will. I'll try to answer as many questions as possible but please bear in mind I am out of the circle now so some of it will be from memory. (PS. The "left testicle" incident involved a microphone. PPS. I know I didn't help my credibility with some of the posts I made the first time around but I like a bit of a laugh and most people seemed to enjoy the tongue-in-cheek bits I did).The names of the songs you mentioned, their titles make so much sense to me in the context of my particular lunacy as many call it. And if all goes well i suspect those two songs shall be released after i feel it is time to continue with my particular work, which shall make so much a stir, if anybody actually takes the time to look that is. Please tell us here, more about the game each track etc |
dowens 13.05.2013 17:57 |
I'm assuming the silence from someone inside of QPL means that there could be validity to this thread? "The Game" album info is the most intriguing info I've read on this board in probably 4-5 years. Wow. Who in the world is this guy? Sounds like he was extremely close to the band. Of course, I have no clue! |
dowens 13.05.2013 18:02 |
And I'll add one more thing. I don't think this stuff sees the light of day because of BM's perfectionist being. Plus maybe the FM box set didn't do so well? It seems that the image of Queen is all Freddie, so if his box set didn't fare well, maybe QPL is scared to pull the trigger on a Queen box set? I don't agree with this but... Heck, whatever happened to the MJ/FM tracks they reworked a couple of years ago?! Just my 2 cents, which will buy you a bunch of nothing. :) |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 18:11 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote:A conspiracy so vast concealing a treasure so rare and earth shattering,they could make a Hollywood movie about it!The Real Wizard wrote: Your understanding is incredibly flawed. Toss the lies and preconceptions and read carefully: The fanthology is a group of Queen collectors who have, individually and collectively, been responsible for the emergence of the overwhelming majority of unreleased Queen material over the past couple decades for everyone to hear. Full stop. Breathe. Keep reading: Incredible amounts of time and money have been invested to acquire said material, and people like you merely need to point and click to download. With all that spare time you could be working on your reading comprehension instead of spewing crap about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. So stop. You add nothing to the discussion. Do you understand any better now or do you need me to draw a picture? The topic starter here is a very welcome addition to the discussion.Among all the contributions to this thread, this is the best out of a quality bunch of replies. "Fanthology" are not the enemy - it's QPL. "Fanthology" members are torn though and it's completely understandable why. On the one hand, they're Queen fans - massive Queen fans. So much so, they've spent £10,000s acquiring the rarest material. They need to preserve the scarcity of the recordings in order to trade to get more rarities. On the other hand, they'd love to share it with all of us. They'd love QPL to release them. But the value of their investments will plummet, just like the FM rarities did after the publication of the box set. They are caught between a rock and a hard place, albeit with some fascinating, rare music to accompany them. Neither side wants to admit how vast the output of recordings, different versions, unused songs, etc are, even during the early albums. It doesn't suit them (as they don't want QPL to know they have it) and it sure doesn't suite QPL (who don't want to release anything any way). Two 4m versions of SSOR exist. "Deep Ridge" exists. "Surrender To The City" exists. The Game was originally going to be a double album but, somehow, was released as one of their shortest single albums. Some of the left-off songs are great, some a bit iffy. With the quality of songs available, how on earth did "Coming Soon" and "Need Your Loving Tonight" make it on the album??? Take the red pill and go back to your 2011 remasters. Take the blue pill and see how deep the rabbit hole really goes. |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 18:16 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote:Why?FriedChicken wrote: We are keeping the original version of Let Me Live with Freddie on all verses, the 8 minute Bohemian Rhapsody, Deep Ridge, Surrender to the City and the long version of Seven Seas of Rhye in our archives. We will release them when The New Order is ready.Just for clarity, there is no 8 minute version of Bohemian Rhapsody that the band members made me aware of during my time as part of what we were all part of. SSOR long version has already been proven to exist via the acetate auction on eBay.FriedChicken wrote: Strange how the Fanthology has been seen as some kind of Illuminati, while it's 'just' a group of Queen experts.Some of the people in the inner circle thought Fanthology was behind 9/11. |
inu-liger 13.05.2013 18:31 |
Queen fan, I'm pretty sure that "9/11" comment was made in sarcastic jest in response to FC's sarcasm :) |
John S Stuart 13.05.2013 18:35 |
Queen fan wrote:Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote:Why? Because Queen's 9th UK LP was "The Game" and if we include "A Human Body"; (some CD versions) are 11 tracks long! Apart from the Human Body reference; It also featured references to Suicide Bombers (Don't try it), Another One Bites The Dust, and Save Me. For those who heeded the anti-flight warnings they were clearly informed to "Sail Away..." but only loved one's (as in our sisters). Rock It was the code name of the project (ie Rocket!). Besides if you play it backwards... at half speed... It's all there if you look for it.FriedChicken wrote: We are keeping the original version of Let Me Live with Freddie on all verses, the 8 minute Bohemian Rhapsody, Deep Ridge, Surrender to the City and the long version of Seven Seas of Rhye in our archives. We will release them when The New Order is ready.Just for clarity, there is no 8 minute version of Bohemian Rhapsody that the band members made me aware of during my time as part of what we were all part of. SSOR long version has already been proven to exist via the acetate auction on eBay.FriedChicken wrote: Strange how the Fanthology has been seen as some kind of Illuminati, while it's 'just' a group of Queen experts.Some of the people in the inner circle thought Fanthology was behind 9/11. |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 18:37 |
inu-liger wrote: Queen fan, I'm pretty sure that "9/11" comment was made in sarcastic jest in response to FC's sarcasm :)The whole spirit of the thread is to give a chance tothe veracitiy of the posters claim, without dismissing it out of hand. anything is possible. You never know, you might get ananswer that makes some sense. |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 18:41 |
John S Stuart wrote:I see, yes all of it fitsQueen fan wrote:Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote:Why? Because Queen's 9th UK LP was "The Game" and if we include "A Human Body"; (some CD versions) are 11 tracks long! Apart from the Human Body reference; It also featured references to Suicide Bombers (Don't try it), Another One Bites The Dust, and Save Me. For those who heeded the anti-flight warnings they were clearly informed to "Sail Away..." but only loved one's (as in our sisters). Rock It was the code name of the project (ie Rocket!). Besides if you play it backwards... at half speed... It's all there if you look for it.FriedChicken wrote: We are keeping the original version of Let Me Live with Freddie on all verses, the 8 minute Bohemian Rhapsody, Deep Ridge, Surrender to the City and the long version of Seven Seas of Rhye in our archives. We will release them when The New Order is ready.Just for clarity, there is no 8 minute version of Bohemian Rhapsody that the band members made me aware of during my time as part of what we were all part of. SSOR long version has already been proven to exist via the acetate auction on eBay.FriedChicken wrote: Strange how the Fanthology has been seen as some kind of Illuminati, while it's 'just' a group of Queen experts.Some of the people in the inner circle thought Fanthology was behind 9/11. It does Makes sense. but do we have anything less esoteric to verify their connection to the job? What about Motive? was it for Freddie perhaps , a revenge? I did hear that some kind of sound waves device tech may have been used in turning the towers to dust like that, did they use a secret song? it is not beyondd the realms of possibilty Freddie had a very good voice to say the least experiment IV tells it all could have been so link |
AlexRocks 13.05.2013 19:02 |
Oh paaalease! "Coming Soon" and "Need Your Love Tonight" are phenomenal songs. And "Innuendo" is one of their best studio l.p.s. Get real. You have serious credibility dismissing such master pieces. Also what do you mean by it was a "mad time"? |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 19:06 |
AlexRocks wrote: Oh paaalease! "Coming Soon" and "Need Your Love Tonight" are phenomenal songs. And "Innuendo" is one of their best studio l.p.s. Get real. You have serious credibility dismissing such master pieces. Also what do you mean by it was a "mad time"?Kenny Everett invented that didn't he? |
Queen fan 13.05.2013 19:10 |
Cmon now, lets have an entire list done in order, readable and full of ALL the songs you remember All from each album and was there plans for other albums in between etc and mention something about lyrics please but al the songs with names and what they were like etc Please! |
Doga 13.05.2013 19:16 |
Just a question, you don't have to answer of course, but, you remember if Queen recorded Hangman in studio? Here's the song live from a bootleg: link |
inu-liger 13.05.2013 21:33 |
Queen fan wrote: Cmon now, lets have an entire list done in order, readable and full of ALL the songs you remember All from each album and was there plans for other albums in between etc and mention something about lyrics please but al the songs with names and what they were like etc Please!Now you're just being rude and demanding |
inu-liger 13.05.2013 21:42 |
dudeofqueen wrote: I'm surprised that the venerable GT and the even more esteemed Greggy Boy Brooks haven't chipped in to this by now.Unless they are simply too busy to participate at the moment (Gary's attending a WWRY anniversary event as far as I know), they probably can't say much otherwise due to non-disclosure agreements. |
inu-liger 13.05.2013 21:45 |
dowens wrote: Heck, whatever happened to the MJ/FM tracks they reworked a couple of years ago?!From what I can gather, it seems to be caught up in ongoing wrangling between MJ's estate and QPL/Universal, since they want them to be put to good use on some sort of release that won't end up being a very wasteful situation. In other words, waiting for the right product and the right time. |
Mr.QueenFan 13.05.2013 22:02 |
Interesting stuff! Everything i'm about to write i'm assuming that you're being honest here. The best topic in years. Thank you! -The claims about "Surrender to the city" makes perfect sense to me. I remember that when somebody made a copy to a cassete to me around 1992, for several years i thought that that "surrender to the city" part was the begining of "Funny how love is" rather than the ending of "MOTBQ". Only when i got the cd i found out that it was part od MOTBQ, wich doesn't make "musical" sense to me. - I remember reading an interview of Freddie around 1975, and i believe that he stated that they had lot's of mateial that didn't get to Sheer Heart Attack. but i think that we all know that the early years were very productive. - What i didn't know was that they were also very productive during the "Game"- It is by far the worst Queen album in my opinion, closelly followed by the "Works". So to know that they have more songs that didn't make it makes me wonder about the quallity of such songs considering the ones that did make it to the album. But our tastes are very different, because Innuendo is in my opinion a masterpiece, so i really don't know what to think when you say the ones that were left out are better :) |
Sebastian 14.05.2013 00:56 |
I'm still sceptic ... whatever Mr Bottom (aka Mr Testicle) is saying could easily be true, and it could just as easily be false IMO. |
cmsdrums 14.05.2013 01:23 |
I've always though that the reason that Coming Soon and Need Your Loving Tonight made the final cut of The Game was to level up the songwriting credits/Royalties for John and Roger; they were possibly the best of their 'second track' offerings. Having said that, I love Need Your Loving Tonight, and I'm sure John made more from that album than the rest of them following the success of ...Dust as a single?!? |
Sebastian 14.05.2013 02:55 |
Considering Brian wrote the B-Side, he must have made as much money out of the single as John did. |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 04:21 |
if you're talking purely in record sales royalties then yes. but if you're talking in terms of airplay residuals - radio, tv ads, sporting arenas etc etc etc then NO, john made way more out of that single than Brian...and still does so |
Supersonic_Man89 14.05.2013 04:37 |
If they did make all these extra tracks for the Game, is there a reason why the only original B-side from that era is 'A Human Body'...or was it rarer to release original material as B Sides back then? |
thomasquinn 32989 14.05.2013 05:00 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: If they did make all these extra tracks for the Game, is there a reason why the only original B-side from that era is 'A Human Body'...or was it rarer to release original material as B Sides back then?Not really. For instance, Bruce Springsteen had a kind of policy of pretty much *only* releasing original material as B-sides. |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 05:41 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: If they did make all these extra tracks for the Game, is there a reason why the only original B-side from that era is 'A Human Body'...or was it rarer to release original material as B Sides back then? It was rare for Queen to do it but not other bands. To that point I believe the only non-album song they released as the b-side of a single was See What A Fool I've Been. Of course, after A Human Body we got Soul Brother and I Go Crazy in (relatively) short succession. Informative article about it here: http://www.queenonline.com/en/features/b-sides-fan-feature-adam-unger/ |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 14.05.2013 13:10 |
Queen fan wrote: Cmon now, lets have an entire list done in order, readable and full of ALL the songs you remember All from each album and was there plans for other albums in between etc and mention something about lyrics please but al the songs with names and what they were like etc Please!We're talking years and years of memories, Queen fan. I'm happy to answer any questions you've got but please phrase them as individual (sets of) questions rather than "tell us everything!" I ain't a writer but I am happy for others to use the accurate information I have provided in reference works. Like they did last time, doubters. |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 13:44 |
waunakonor wrote: Well, my original post was made half in jest, but it seems that all your silly ad hominems and aggressive language are completely serious, so let's stop for a moment and realize that we're both fellow Queen fans and both passionate about the band.Indeed, having something in common is always a good starting point. Call it an ad hominem exercise if you want, but I still speak the truth. If you want to learn about how unreleased music makes its way to your computer, I suggest you enter the discussion without preconceptions and listen open-mindedly to those who have been actively involved in the process for decades, not people who don't have the first clue about it. They're like creationists getting in the way of a debate on evolution. Listen to people who have done the research and have first hand experience, not people who are fueled by ignorant convictions that have no basis in reality or practice. Now, what I'm not understanding here is what exactly this Fanthology is giving me.These people have given you countless amounts of unreleased music over the last couple decades. Just because it doesn't say "fanthology release" doesn't mean it didn't come from any one or number of those people. Collectors group up all the time to gather and release music. This is nothing unusual. What makes the Queen situation seem unusual is that one of these people decided to blow everyone's cover and be a complete douchebag about it, which has spawned incredible amounts of ignorance about where unreleased music comes from. The person who puts a recording online is not necessarily the beginning of the chain. If they aren't and their intentions are pure, 99% of the time they will credit their sources (occasionally they may innocently slip up and forget). If not, that's usually the first warning sign that someone is doing something they likely shouldn't be - especially if they're someone who has 16 posts and refuses to communicate rationally (see today's share of the Reaction and Opposition acetates - pure vitriol). The anonymity of the people doing the actual work gives the robinhood types the advantage of taking full credit, and it's easy for people like yourself to innocently accept that the robinhood is fully responsible for the music's emergence. They aren't. There are forces behind the scenes that aren't usually seen on the surface. It'd be like thanking a TV network for the shows you enjoy and nobody else. The argument seems to be that withholding things from me means that the people doing the withholding can trade for more stuff to withhold. I don't get how this is anything but incredibly selfish.Many people think that, but it's very short-sighted. The "let's share everything now" mentality is a utopia we'd all like to experience. While it'd be great now, it'd have long term repercussions. If every single rarity was released right now, and later on other trading opportunities came up, what would one offer in exchange? You'd then be at square one, having undone years or possibly decades of work. So there's a very good reason why these processes exist. They play out in a organic way as they're meant to. In the end - everyone benefits. And if someone breaks it - everyone loses. Please stop making assumptions about things you don't know. If you genuinely want to know how these things work, just ask. Hopefully this thread provides some answers. But don't vilify the very people who are responsible for the emergence of the unreleased music you enjoy. That accomplishes nothing. These things are covert because it's the only way it can be done. If you or anyone would like it to be otherwise, then I invite you to start building up your contacts and do it another way. Until then, enjoy what comes when it comes. Now - back to our regular scheduled program, the details about Queen albums that are new to most people here. Without a doubt, 1980-81 was a very fruitful time for the band and the existence of dozens of unreleased tracks wouldn't surprise me in the least. |
soxtalon 14.05.2013 13:57 |
I for one didn't frequent the board much when you were here the first time R.U.B. - can you explain who you are and why you were privvy to so much inside information? I remain skeptical. But I've always been open minded enouth to hear people out... |
Lord Gaga 14.05.2013 13:58 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: I'm happy to answer any questions you've got but please phrase them as individual (sets of) questions rather than "tell us everything!" I ain't a writer but I am happy for others to use the accurate information I have provided in reference works. Like they did last time, doubters.Welp, I'm intrigued! What do you recall about the Kind of Magic sessions? Any unreleased songs from that period? |
Missreclusive 14.05.2013 14:33 |
Probably not relevant to most however, am glad to read that someone else noticed that BM disliked FM! I've thought it for sometime. I cringe at the interviews where he claims such love for Freddie. Roger was far more genuine in those interviews. I think he only likes the cash that rolls in ...oh and his insane love of badgers. He certainly doesn't care at all for the long time Queen fans. Thanks for the interesting thread. |
Chief Mouse 14.05.2013 14:33 |
The Real Wizard, I enjoy reading your posts, thank you. |
GratefulFan 14.05.2013 14:35 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Call it an ad hominem exercise if you want, but I still speak the truth. If you want to learn about how unreleased music makes its way to your computer, I suggest you enter the discussion without preconceptions and listen open-mindedly to those who have been actively involved in the process for decades, not people who don't have the first clue about it. They're like creationists getting in the way of a debate on evolution. Listen to people who have done the research and have first hand experience, not people who are fueled by ignorant convictions that have no basis in reality or practice.The fundamental folly of this is and always has been that it's not your reality that is being described. It the reality of those of us with our faces pressed up against the glass. You don't need to be an economist to know that trickle down economics is problematic and you don't need to be a trader to know that Wall Street ethics can suck. If rare music discovery and sharing were to spring forth from nothing today it would never be as it has evolved. Stop trying to convince smart people that tyranny is good for them. It's a bit reprehensible, though nothing less than I've grown to expect from you. Be greedy and grubby and selfish with music for the rest of your natural life as you please, but stop insulting the intelligence of people who are excluded. |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 14:41 |
@GratefulFan - tyranny? that's a huge exaggeration - even by your standards. if you're so noble/altruistic/genuine and (more importantly) so anti what the Fantology do then why don't you put yer own money where your oh-so-condescending mouth is? how about you go out there, buy a few hundred dollars worth of rare queen tracks and upload it ALL here lossless gratis for everyone immediately? no? thought not! - cos it's easy to criticise from a position of "purity" out of interest, exactly how much of the fantology leaked rarities have you downloaded? because unless the answer is ZERO...you should stop preaching |
GratefulFan 14.05.2013 14:51 |
Bullshit Brenski. People have not paid adequate attention to the utter dishonest sliminess of the savaging of David Fuller. Because he's an unlikable person it's been too easy and people have not paid attention to how poor that case really was and to how self serving it is. David has another idea about where rare music belongs and when you crush competing ideas with your power that is the definition of tyranny. I have no problem putting some money where my mouth is. It was me that pointed out that nobody ever had given me an opportunity to contribute financially and if they had I'd have done so. It was me who wondered aloud about pooling our money to buy stuff from Fuller and releasing it immediately here. The problem is that I don't have the appropriate knowledge of the material and I would not be comfortable ethically if David had only got the material from Fanthology as Fanthology claims and not through other trades as David claims, and the truth on that is NOT clear despite what Fanthology would like you to think. So I feel stuck. But be assured it's NOTHING to do with not being willing to put my money where my mouth is. And I haven't downloaded any Fanthology rarities. I listened to what was made available on YouTube. |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 14:54 |
GratefulFan wrote: And I haven't downloaded any Fanthology rarities. I listened to what was made available on YouTube.... almost ALL of which originally came from people in the fanthology. That's the key element you're missing. You don't know what a "fanthology rarity" is because you don't know who is in it. About 95% of the studio and live recordings available were brought to you by any number of the very people you have committed to slagging off as a full time job. Again, your ignorance rules the day. Are you listening yet? |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 14:57 |
GratefulFan wrote: I have no problem putting some money where my mouth is. It was me that pointed out that nobody ever had given me an opportunity to contribute financially and if they had I'd have done so.So you're blaming collectors because you have chosen not to network with them? Your idiocy just jumped tenfold. |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 15:00 |
GratefulFan wrote: Bullshit Brenski.everything you have ever downloaded or listened to has come from somewhere...traders/collectors/fantology...so it's YOU who's uttering the bullshit secondly, and more importantly - fuller joined a "club" and then broke the rules of the club...that makes him the treacherous one. that makes him the one in the wrong. because if he'd been upfront with them and said "can i join? contribute then leak everything?" he knows they'd have said we don't want you get your head out for your own self-righteous arse and see the truth...or are you Fuller's lovechild? |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 15:16 |
The usual self serving shite from the same band of collectors who call non-collectors "beggars" and are currently blackmailing Queenzone that no further material will be shared on the Sharing Forum until Queenzone collectively bows down and kisses their arse. Pathetic little boys hoarding your shiny toys ... |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 15:18 |
Or you can just find rarities and release them yourself. Nobody's stopping you. Good luck ! |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 15:23 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Or you can just find rarities and release them yourself. Nobody's stopping you. Good luck ! No need to wish me good luck. I've little interest in your hobby. Good luck though hoarding and trading all your little files! |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 15:27 |
So you know nothing about it and have no interest in it. Tell me more about your expertise. And why, pray tell, do you post at a Queen forum if unreleased songs from 1974 do not interest you? |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 15:37 |
of course people are "interested" but only if things are free.... "The grabbing hands Grab all they can Everything counts in large amounts" |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 15:38 |
The Real Wizard wrote: So you know nothing about it and have no interest in it. Tell me more about your expertise. And why, pray tell, do you post at a Queen forum if unreleased songs from 1974 do not interest you? I don't claim any epxertise, but I can spot a self-serving bullshitter a mile off, and I'm addressing one right now. As for why I post on Queenzone, why don't you stretch your mental abilities a bit and try to figure it out for yourself (here's a clue: there's more to life and more to being a fan than hoarding/trading little files). |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 15:44 |
brENsKi wrote: of course people are "interested" but only if things are free.... "The grabbing hands Grab all they can Everything counts in large amounts" I don't feel I have to defend myself against wild stabs in the dark but I've spent a small fortune on music in my life. No doubt there is a generation of fans growing up who are used to free downloads because the tech is now in place for that to make sense: time to accept that and stop hanging on to trading models from the 1970s (models that are based on the worst traits of capitalism and elitism). |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 15:51 |
i have never heard such crap in all my life ^^^ people"collect" things as hobbies...stamps, cars, butterflies, music etc etc collectors pay a fortune for their collections and are entitled to do so you wouldn't go and demand that the owner of a 1972 mkII jensen interceptor or an 1850 penny black should give you what they have saved, searched, tracked down invested days/weeks into finding and then laid out their hard-earned cash for...just hand it over to you so these rare records are exactly the same. the "owner" doesn't own the copyright, but they own the actual tangible item they have laid out for - and it's NOT our right to have it ps - for someone with no interest in the "shiny little things" you have a fucking lot to say on the subject.... must be a prviliged existence that BOTH yourself and GreatfulFan ...always being able to speak from the moral high ground. must be great to NEVER be wrong about anything |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 16:11 |
brENsKi wrote: i have never heard such crap in all my life ^^^ people"collect" things as hobbies...stamps, cars, butterflies, music etc etc collectors pay a fortune for their collections and are entitled to do so you wouldn't go and demand that the owner of a 1972 mkII jensen interceptor or an 1850 penny black should give you what they have saved, searched, tracked down invested days/weeks into finding and then laid out their hard-earned cash for...just hand it over to you so these rare records are exactly the same. the "owner" doesn't own the copyright, but they own the actual tangible item they have laid out for - and it's NOT our right to have it ps - for someone with no interest in the "shiny little things" you have a fucking lot to say on the subject.... must be a prviliged existence that BOTH yourself and GreatfulFan ...always being able to speak from the moral high ground. must be great to NEVER be wrong about anything You're losing the plot. When have I ever claimed not to be wrong? What concern is it of yours what I talk about? lol! |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 16:16 |
at least i can claim to have ever been in contact with the plot in the first place think you and "it" are complete strangers you were the one who said you had no interest....ffs - just exactly how much would you talk about something YOU WERE actually interested in? cos if this is you NOT INTERESTED then you could talk the hind legs off a donkey |
Holly2003 14.05.2013 16:31 |
brENsKi wrote: at least i can claim to have ever been in contact with the plot in the first place think you and "it" are complete strangers you were the one who said you had no interest....ffs - just exactly how much would you talk about something YOU WERE actually interested in? cos if this is you NOT INTERESTED then you could talk the hind legs off a donkey Yawn. |
brENsKi 14.05.2013 16:33 |
bless ^^^ |
scovel001 14.05.2013 17:58 |
Has a queen fan who doesn't own or hasn't heard any other 'unreleased' tracks beyond YouTube. I just wanted to ask, is there anything in your vast collections which you would consider would be a top 10 hit if released? & if so could you give a name to the track? Also, does anyone have Roger & Brian's 'official' stance on the 'archive' material? To the Original poster, I just wondered if you could share any anecdotes around The Miracle album & any unfinished/unheard tracks as that is one of my favourite albums. |
Lord Gaga 14.05.2013 18:08 |
Yes, well, this is fun and all, but I'd still love to hear more about the sessions from A Kind of Magic. |
Queen fan 14.05.2013 19:53 |
ok i cant think of a question yet but i have a general question for everyone am i right in thinking i cant live with you was never a single or b side? |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2013 22:04 |
brENsKi wrote: at least i can claim to have ever been in contact with the plot in the first place think you and "it" are complete strangers you were the one who said you had no interest....ffs - just exactly how much would you talk about something YOU WERE actually interested in? cos if this is you NOT INTERESTED then you could talk the hind legs off a donkeyAnd ... brENsKi for the win. |
Saint Jiub 14.05.2013 22:24 |
Please remove your lips from Brenski's piehole. |
Saint Jiub 14.05.2013 22:27 |
Please remove your lips from Brenski's piehole. |
tcc 14.05.2013 22:29 |
GratefulFan wrote: It was me that pointed out that nobody ever had given me an opportunity to contribute financially and if they had I'd have done so.Here is an opportunity for you to buy this and share it on queenzone: link Ref: link (Tongue in cheek :-) ) |
GratefulFan 14.05.2013 23:25 |
The Real Wizard wrote:More like brenski for the Aunt Sally. There is nothing inconsistent in having an interest in criticizing the values and methods of something while having no interest in participating in it. Far from being incompatible, one presumably flows from the other. It can be safely assumed that Brenski would rather eat garden worms than seek out pictures of an ill Freddie or any number of other offenses to his delicate Fred sensibilities, so given the logic I guess we can look forward to the end of Brenski's copious, typically profane and assaultive commentary on all matters related. And...Queenzone for the win.brENsKi wrote: at least i can claim to have ever been in contact with the plot in the first place think you and "it" are complete strangers you were the one who said you had no interest....ffs - just exactly how much would you talk about something YOU WERE actually interested in? cos if this is you NOT INTERESTED then you could talk the hind legs off a donkeyAnd ... brENsKi for the win. |
inu-liger 14.05.2013 23:31 |
Shut up Meg |
The Real Wizard 15.05.2013 00:35 |
GratefulFan wrote: It can be safely assumed that Brenski would rather eat garden worms than seek out pictures of an ill Freddie or any number of other offenses to his delicate Fred sensibilities, so given the logic I guess we can look forward to the end of Brenski's copious, typically profane and assaultive commentary on all matters related.Thanks for clearing that up. This thread can finally go to rest now. |
Freddie`s my Hero 15.05.2013 00:49 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: Well, well, well. How times change. How what was ridiculed a few years ago is now accepted as the truth. Back in Summer 2004, I joined the Queenzone for about a couple of weeks. How things were different back then. I was based in London back then - at the hub of the "action". I was still part of the "crew". There was a genuine desire to release the boxsets in 2006. I had access, as a friend, to a large number of acetates, unreleased songs, albums with different sounds, and so on. I posted on Queenzone about the original versions of "Queen II" and the "The Game" and was widely ridiculed by the likes of John S Stuart and all. Yes, I was the mysterious, slightly tongue-in-cheek "The Left Testicle of Freddie". I'm now back in my hometown in England, cut out from the action. Following a major falling out with certain influential movers and shakers within the bubble, I am now persona non grata. Just for the records - I was ridiculed for saying the "Seven Seas of Rhye" lasted originally around 4 minutes but was then cut back. Lo and behold - one of the two 4 minute versions finally appears on Ebay - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/QUEEN-ACETATE-Seven-Seas-Of-Rhye-alternate-version-MEGA-RARE-/390580025005?nma=true&si=U6hcg3GVOYTXteO%252FWJgZ2gxYBpo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557. For the records, the version of the song was not the "wrong backing track" - it was but it wasn't, it's hard to explain. I have been out of the loop for so long now that I don't know if a certain person still has the other 4-minute version (I heard it on a studio tape - don't know if an acetate version of it was made). Queen II did originally have 13 songs. Their existence has now been confirmed in books despite the ridicule the suggestions attracted at the time. I was told that "Deep Ridge" (originally meant to segue between White Queen and SDOD and was very Led Zep) was left off because the continuity of the sound wasn't quite right (in their minds). I thought it sounded great and lyrically, it sort of tied the album sides together making the concept stronger. It's hard to explain - sorry but been a few years since I heard the song now. "Surrender To The City" lasted about 3 minutes from memory and was quite poppy. For some reason, unknown to me, only the first bit of it (heavily reworked though) was included on the album segueing directly into FHLI. That section became part of TMOFTBQ. When you think it about, despite that song's many different mood changes, have you never thought that the last 30 seconds didn't quite make sense in the soundscape of that song? The reason for the non-appearance of the box sets is two-fold and I find the reasons unfortunate, especially for the fans who have stuck by the band up to 40 years. a) Lack of will by band members - the argument about incomplete archives is partly true but they're nowhere near as incomplete as suggested. They're now all old men and don't particularly fancy the graft in putting them together. I sort of get that but it's a pisser for all of us. b) The "Fanthology" members simply enjoy the competition between each other. I am not slagging them off - the amount of unreleased stuff they have given away free we should all be grateful for. They are fans first and foremost and all the rarities will surface over the next 20-30 years as they enjoy the gratitude of the general fans. Their argument about needing valuable stuff to trade is true. Neither party has any interest in admitting that the outtakes, unreleased songs, etc is quite as vast as it is. You would generally be surprised. I love this place and I love Queen. Do with this information as you will. I'll try to answer as many questions as possible but please bear in mind I am out of the circle now so some of it will be from memory. (PS. The "left testicle" incident involved a microphone. PPS. I know I didn't help my credibility with some of the posts I made the first time around but I like a bit of a laugh and most people seemed to enjoy the tongue-in-cheek bits I did). I am fan of Queen but I don't know all things and I don't know where lie and truth, you know. I would like to know: Are there any demo versions of songs from the album "A Night at the Opera," "Day at the Races", Jazz, Sheer Heart Attack, News Of the World not to mention the song "Feelings Feelings" Take 10? Thank you! |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 01:02 |
The Real Wizard wrote:brENsKi wrote: at least i can claim to have ever been in contact with the plot in the first place think you and "it" are complete strangers you were the one who said you had no interest....ffs - just exactly how much would you talk about something YOU WERE actually interested in? cos if this is you NOT INTERESTED then you could talk the hind legs off a donkeyAnd ... brENsKi for the win. errr..You are the one doing the long speeches, not me. You are the one who keeps bringing up this issue on the forum, not me. Your group of traders are the ones who brought the Fuller issue on to the forum, not me, Your little group are the ones who ratted Fuller to QPL, and boasted about it here, not me. You are the one threatening to cut off the Sharing Forum, not me. In contrast, I suggested you do all your dirty laundry off the forum. If I wasn't for your endless whining about it here, your self-serving indignation and threats, I wouldn't be commenting about it at all because I could give a flying fuck what a bunch of whiny children do with their toys. You are a proper little Stalinist though, hoping that if you repeat the same lies over and over then they will stick. Good luck with that Joe: we're not all as dumb as you seem to think. ps well done to brENsKi returning to lower case instead of UPPER CASE: the tranquilisers must be taking effect. |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 01:03 |
inu-liger wrote: Shut up Meg Welcome back ratty! |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 02:43 |
GratefulFan wrote: It can be safely assumed that Brenski would rather eat garden worms than seek out pictures of an ill Freddie or any number of other offenses to his delicate Fred sensibilities, so given the logic I guess we can look forward to the end of Brenski's copious, typically profane and assaultive commentary on all matters related. And...Queenzone for the win.you mean "your queenzone" for the win - ie your ideal of a sterile forum where only YOUR opinion counts and only what YOU say is right...and we all bow to your "considered and highly superior" viewpoint. well, YOU might think...but self-righteous sanctimonious little pricks usually are like you. good luck with getting rid of me. tw*t |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 02:47 |
Holly2003 wrote: ps well done to brENsKi returning to lower case instead of UPPER CASE: the tranquilisers must be taking effect.at least my pills work - there isn't a drug invented could fix your problems....interfering and busy-bodying into something you claim to have no interest whatsoever in...there's no treatment for that "illness" - why don't you spend your days in your local shopping centre...signing every petition you can find that you have no interest in?...silly me...you already did that |
inu-liger 15.05.2013 03:32 |
Holly2003 wrote:Who?inu-liger wrote: Shut up MegWelcome back ratty! |
Togg 15.05.2013 04:09 |
This is without doubt the most interesting topic in years, I remember reading somewhere around the time of The Game being recorded that dozens of tracks were recorded and not used. At the time I was very excited about this but over time I forgot about it. I have never heard any stories about The Game being a double album but it makes perfect sense from what I can remember at the time. I have never understood why if they have decent tracks in the bank they have not done more with them, it doesnt make business sense given the desire from the public to hear rare Freddie tracks to hold them back, unless they are truly not up to standard... but people keep saying there are some good ones in there.... Why would QP not wish them released? I get why collectors don't but not the band? Either way it would seem unlikely they will ever come out now officially, the time has passed and every day the reason to release them gets diluted. Great topic very interesting |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 04:23 |
brENsKi wrote:GratefulFan wrote: It can be safely assumed that Brenski would rather eat garden worms than seek out pictures of an ill Freddie or any number of other offenses to his delicate Fred sensibilities, so given the logic I guess we can look forward to the end of Brenski's copious, typically profane and assaultive commentary on all matters related. And...Queenzone for the win.you mean "your queenzone" for the win - ie your ideal of a sterile forum where only YOUR opinion counts and only what YOU say is right...and we all bow to your "considered and highly superior" viewpoint. well, YOU might think...but self-righteous sanctimonious little pricks usually are like you. good luck with getting rid of me. tw*t You're projecting your own issues/fantasies onto GF. Most of your time on QZ is spent trying to shout down people with whom you disagree. And that's what you do when you aren't bullying newbies. You're a flat-pitch bully and you don't like it when others disagree with you. You're in good company there with The Real Wizard. |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 04:28 |
brENsKi wrote:Holly2003 wrote: ps well done to brENsKi returning to lower case instead of UPPER CASE: the tranquilisers must be taking effect.at least my pills work - there isn't a drug invented could fix your problems....interfering and busy-bodying into something you claim to have no interest whatsoever in...there's no treatment for that "illness" - why don't you spend your days in your local shopping centre...signing every petition you can find that you have no interest in?...silly me...you already did that ^ Anyone know what Father Jack's on about? |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 05:36 |
seems to me that BOTH yourself and GreafulSpam are doing as much "shouting down" as any. - at least if i shout at someone - i don't pretend to be some form of "online policing for the guardians of moral decency" - that's hypocritical of you both. for my part - i have engaged in one of the most interesting discussions to appear on here in years - and, without input from you pair there would've been no hostility on this thread. pot and kettle. or to quote Ade Edmondson "hoisted by your own leotard" |
Hang On In There 15.05.2013 05:47 |
Well, this thread started out interesting - I'd never heard about the possibility of The Game being a double album. An alternate version of Queen II, one of my favourites, would be very curious. I really doubt we'll ever hear any of this stuff, I guess it's fun to speculate - why does it always turn into a fight though? |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 05:52 |
like i said it was going swimmingly til the playground prefects turned up to indoctrinate us all. but we could get back on topic. one thing i find curious....if there was so much stuff recorded for II and The Game - why such a dirth of "extras" on the 2011 "non-deluxe editions" |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 05:54 |
brENsKi wrote: seems to me that BOTH yourself and GreafulSpam are doing as much "shouting down" as any. - at least if i shout at someone - i don't pretend to be some form of "online policing for the guardians of moral decency" - that's hypocritical of you both. for my part - i have engaged in one of the most interesting discussions to appear on here in years - and, without input from you pair there would've been no hostility on this thread. pot and kettle. or to quote Ade Edmondson "hoisted by your own leotard" Yeah, you're Queenzone's greatest hero. Tell me some more great things about yourself. |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 05:59 |
you really can't help yourself...even when i try to get things back "on topic" you have to derail it...you're an argumentative creature - just for the sake of it...if you really have no interest in the topic at all then why don't you fuck off out of it and leave well alone? unless it's because what i said about you being a self-appointed cyber patrol and moral guardian of the "GratefulHolly Code" ============================== ....so in a desperate attempt to lurch this back in the subject direction i will repost the above one thing i find curious....if there was so much stuff recorded for II and The Game - why such a dirth of "extras" on the 2011 "non-deluxe editions" |
TomP63 15.05.2013 06:24 |
one thing i find curious....if there was so much stuff recorded for II and The Game - why such a dirth of "extras" on the 2011 "non-deluxe editions" Well Brenski, that my very same thought, but The Game is in some point interessting, due the fact that we have It's a beautiful day and Sail away sweet sister. The thing which bother me the most about the extra tracks on The Game is, why was SASS only a halve backes demo and not the fully flegged song, I do feel that A Human Body is in it's right place, the live tracks are totally out of place. I know that we both are 50 (correct me if I'm wrong here), but I always thought that Queen fans/collectors of our age always knew that there were at least over 20 tracks laid down for The Game, I can remember plenty interviews were this was revealed. Now we still are on the rumour path, I heard in 1982 that Hot Space was merely a statement album, in that sence that Queen had made a different album, a more harder, or more rock album than Hot Space. But that EMI wasn't satisfied with the result, as being too much rock and that Queen made Hot Space as it is as we know it. I've heard so many times that Queen have their own black album in the vaults, just as Prince have. I thought that Put Out The Fire could be "the prove" that Queen hade made a (hard)rock album, or at least an album wich is more heavier in sound than Hot Space really is..... Tom |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 06:31 |
brENsKi wrote: you really can't help yourself...even when i try to get things back "on topic" you have to derail it...you're an argumentative creature - just for the sake of it...if you really have no interest in the topic at all then why don't you fuck off out of it and leave well alone? unless it's because what i said about you being a self-appointed cyber patrol and moral guardian of the "GratefulHolly Code" ============================== ....so in a desperate attempt to lurch this back in the subject direction i will repost the above one thing i find curious....if there was so much stuff recorded for II and The Game - why such a dirth of "extras" on the 2011 "non-deluxe editions" Err... no, what you actually want to do is hurl idiotic insults diarrhea fashion with no comeback. If you want the discussion "back on track" then get on with it without the insults and bullshit. |
Vali 15.05.2013 08:09 |
I am not writing this in a "make love not war" mode, it's not my intention, but ... Wow ..... this has become an open war that has spread also in other threads. Really sad reading you guys calling names to each other ... when in fact we all arrived one day here thanks to our common love for Queen. this is ruining the most interesting discussion appearing here in ages. From being really excited / interested about this possible info regarding Queen II, The Game, The MIracle and so on ... to become really sad and just wanting to run away from here ! |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 08:12 |
Exactly. Take the dick-measuring contest elsewhere and let this interesting thread from Roger's Unkempt Buttocks go on. R.U.B., were any other tracks written and recorded for the Hotel New Hampshire? And how about those AKOM sessions! |
TomP63 15.05.2013 08:22 |
Lord Gaga, Roger did wrote Heaven for Everyone during the Magic session, which at some point was left out for the album. Roger re-recorded his version, twice to be precise for the Shove It! album. To my knowlegde, only Keep passing the open windows was written to be appear in the aforementioned movie, but was later on rejected, if I'm not misstaken the lyric keep passing the open windows comes directly from the movie. Hopes this helped you a bit..... Tom |
Ivo-1976 15.05.2013 08:43 |
IMO it's the difference between collectors and fans. Collectors are in it for the money, getting return on their investments. Sharing their music will decrease the value of their investments. Fans are in it for the music. Since Queen have been very reluctant in releasing unreleased stuff, fans can only beg the collectors to release unheard material. Queen can solve all this by opening the vaults but they don't seem to care. They only focus on the mainstream fans, not the 5% diehard fans that get excited by unreleased acetate versions etc. Conclusion: Stalemate. Some Queen-recordings will never be available to the fans. Although it's nice to discuss what may or may not be out there. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 09:08 |
TomP63 wrote: Lord Gaga, Roger did wrote Heaven for Everyone during the Magic session, which at some point was left out for the album. Roger re-recorded his version, twice to be precise for the Shove It! album. To my knowlegde, only Keep passing the open windows was written to be appear in the aforementioned movie, but was later on rejected, if I'm not misstaken the lyric keep passing the open windows comes directly from the movie. Hopes this helped you a bit..... TomOh yes, I do know all that, I just meant on top of that. |
TomP63 15.05.2013 09:26 |
Okay, ofcourse you did know this, it is common knowledge isn't it? Well they also laid down the following tracks: New York, New York, as featured in the Highlander movie, Friends in Pain, You're the only one, Back to the storm, altough the latter was originally written during the sessions for The Works. Tom |
Negative Creep 15.05.2013 10:15 |
Ivo-1976 wrote: IMO it's the difference between collectors and fans. Collectors are in it for the money, getting return on their investments. Sharing their music will decrease the value of their investments. Fans are in it for the music. Since Queen have been very reluctant in releasing unreleased stuff, fans can only beg the collectors to release unheard material. Queen can solve all this by opening the vaults but they don't seem to care. They only focus on the mainstream fans, not the 5% diehard fans that get excited by unreleased acetate versions etc. Conclusion: Stalemate. Some Queen-recordings will never be available to the fans. Although it's nice to discuss what may or may not be out there.Eh? You wouldn't be a Queen collector without being a fan. What others own is really of no concern to others and no one else has the right to access someone elses possessions. WTF. When you've bought an acetate or reel of something interesting for hundreds/thousands of pounds and then upload the content online for all to hear for free I'm sure everyone will rush to thank you and class you as a "fan" instead of a mere "collector". |
Saint Jiub 15.05.2013 10:45 |
inu-liger wrote:Perhaps you can rat out to QPL the bootleggers that sell CD silvers.Holly2003 wrote:Who?inu-liger wrote: Shut up MegWelcome back ratty! |
Ivo-1976 15.05.2013 10:45 |
@Negative Creep Someone could be a collector just for the saking of making money with valuable collector's items. For some it's a business, a way to make money. Sharing valuable items with a community/fan base would make the items less valuable and is therefore - financially - a bad move. But from a community point of view it's a great thing to do. I understand why collectors are reluctant to share rare content. I also understand the frustration of fans who may never hear some pieces of great music recorded by their favorite artists. |
Saint Jiub 15.05.2013 10:47 |
Holly2003 wrote: The usual self serving shite from the same band of collectors who call non-collectors "beggars" and are currently blackmailing Queenzone that no further material will be shared on the Sharing Forum until Queenzone collectively bows down and kisses their arse. Pathetic little boys hoarding your shiny toys ...For the win ... |
mooghead 15.05.2013 11:56 |
Don't encourage them..... |
inu-liger 15.05.2013 12:06 |
Panchgani wrote:Not within my capacity logically speakinginu-liger wrote:Perhaps you can rat out to QPL the bootleggers that sell CD silvers.Holly2003 wrote:Who?inu-liger wrote: Shut up MegWelcome back ratty! |
Bohardy 15.05.2013 12:17 |
Surely if The Game was intended at some point to be a double-album, we'd have heard this story by now? In all the interviews the band have done since then this has never been mentioned by any of them. The ANATO/ADATR double-album concept has been addressed by Brian a few times, I think, so I find it hard to believe that in 30-odd years he (at least) has never thought to mention that this idea was also considered for The Game. In conclusion, I still think RUB is a WUM. |
saj ditta 15.05.2013 12:41 |
who all the commotion who gives/gets the info?has prequeen farts ever given any new info reg previous material?my arse useless old dummies still living on ghuts 12@were did 3 come from?wether its fuller or etc wether its crap fake atleast it keeps queen saddos going with somefing better than voting for bloody splatterd bagders@speedboats.queen was freddie mercury queen died in 1991 the rest is left overs cashing not only on xmas but all year round feeding us shit like we must be mushrooms some are out here?were on earth are these bloody antholigies?black queen white queen its@load of crap.if it wasnt for mr fuller@his music unreleased stuff he gave fans for free we would be dead he gave he served he did more than prequeem have in the last 20 odd years@now they take him to court watabunch of wankers this is how they say thankyou to the fans true fans who keep queen fredd memoriies alive nice one prequeen.@to all those faggotts waiting for those boxsets yeah keep on dreaming for another 10 years when they change to another rip off rec company@release the same ol crap over@over again my goodness such scandal im glad fredd aint here so sad to see his mates cashing millions in his name wow wish i had mates like that? |
mooghead 15.05.2013 12:41 |
I agree, for The Game to have had so many songs written/recorded for it and for it to be news now? Not believable. I'm sure subsequent albums would have had the odd 'this song was originally written for The Game' spiel in the odd interview now and then but for the band to NEVER mention it before.... very suspect claim... |
Saint Jiub 15.05.2013 12:58 |
inu-liger wrote:Really? You can rat on Fuller, but can not rat on bootleggers that sell CD silvers. Interesting ... Typical elite collector hypocricy.Panchgani wrote:Not within my capacity logically speakinginu-liger wrote:Perhaps you can rat out to QPL the bootleggers that sell CD silvers.Holly2003 wrote:Who?inu-liger wrote: Shut up MegWelcome back ratty! |
The Real Wizard 15.05.2013 13:38 |
Holly2003 wrote: Your little group are the ones who ratted Fuller to QPL, and boasted about it here, not me.Again - someone who wasn't there pretending they were. Good luck with that.. |
The Real Wizard 15.05.2013 13:41 |
Ivo-1976 wrote: Collectors are in it for the money, getting return on their investments.Awesome, now I don't have to finish reading your post after reading this drivel. Thank goodness it was the second sentence. Carry on.. |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 13:44 |
link “It was selfish at first, I wanted a space where I could see my collection, for me and my friends,” he said. But he decided that the art should be shared. After extensive renovations, the building opened as a public art space in 2007. Classy! |
cmsdrums 15.05.2013 14:13 |
I recall Greg Brooks saying a few years ago here that he'd heard unreleased Queen songs in the vaults, including at least one track that he virtually guaranteed could be a number 1 single if released as it was so good. This clearly confirms that some of the 'left behind' material isn't second rate (although I suppose Brian and Roger might think it is). It would be nice to know which era this supposed hit single gem comes from, and also to get confirmation that it is a fully completed finished track (it would be difficult to say that it's a great song if it's missing bits or has incomplete vocal parts etc) Great thread (when on topic) by the way - I hope the original poster sticks around and isn't put off by the nonsense between sensible replies. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 14:24 |
I may be wrong, but I'm certain Greggy said 'Let Me In Your Heart Again' was the potential #1 single, which comes from the 1983 Works sessions. |
Bohardy 15.05.2013 14:29 |
Lord Gaga wrote: I may be wrong, but I'm certain Greggy said 'Let Me In Your Heart Again' was the potential #1 single, which comes from the 1983 Works sessions.I concur. That's what I seem to remember. |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 14:44 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Holly2003 wrote: Your little group are the ones who ratted Fuller to QPL, and boasted about it here, not me.Again - someone who wasn't there pretending they were. Good luck with that.. "Greg [Brooks], remember that list of unreleased rarities I alerted you and the others to that DFR was offering for sale illegally?" Inu-Luger, from the 'Help Wanted' topic. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 14:49 |
Inu's not a member of Fanthology. |
pietrek 15.05.2013 15:01 |
Bohardy wrote:Not at all. If i remember correctly, he referred the #1 thing to a question during the a&a session on qol forum:"do you believe that Queen will have a #1 single in the future?". Then he claimed the existance of Let me in and said that's the most beautiful thing he has ever heard from the vaults. But then it makes the sense that he thought about the Let me In as the potential #1 single.Lord Gaga wrote: I may be wrong, but I'm certain Greggy said 'Let Me In Your Heart Again' was the potential #1 single, which comes from the 1983 Works sessions.I concur. That's what I seem to remember. |
brians wig 15.05.2013 15:03 |
Personally, I'm hoping that "Let Me In" IS the archive bonus track on the forthcoming Ballads album. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:05 |
Same here, then I can finally get rid of my self-made slowed down Anita Dobson version (to approximate a man singing) on my reworked Works album! |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 15:06 |
cmsdrums wrote: Great thread (when on topic) by the way - I hope the original poster sticks around and isn't put off by the nonsense between sensible replies.The authoritarian, self-serving and obfuscating nature of some influential collectors is completely on topic. Certainly 'what exists' is related to 'how likely am I to hear it before I die'? Not very likely if the bullying, crushing monopolists aren't held to account by people who are paying sufficient attention to see through it all, and particularly to see through the convenient boogieman of David Fuller, who has become whoever they need him to be in any moment. Thief of everything or virtually nothing as it serves them. How can people not see through this? People need to be reminded that the Fanthology blow up over last year was over ONE song - an alternate version of Roger Taylor's 'Is it Me', which Fuller denied having only from the Fanthology archives. With the exception of the other track that caused his initial expulsion (before he was invited back) that is all it was about last year. Now it's about whatever they want it to be, as is convenient. It's truly a bit unbelievable to me that so many people buy into this so thoroughly. I'd love to see the same apathy if it was competition for your cell phone provider. I'd love to see the same mindless shouty cheering for some other power trying to crush the marketplace for it's own benefit. Fuller is not alone. There ARE people who simply have a 'sharing' mindset rather than a 'hoarding' mindset and they should be allowed to compete without being bullied and badgered at every turn by extreme self interest. See here for a recent example: link I agree that these conversations are rarely productive and I apologize for any distraction I contributed to that made the thread unpleasant or discouraging reading for anybody. I'll try to be done now. But these things almost always crop up because of the words or actions of collectors. It can be avoided if some would stop the casual savaging of David Fuller well beyond what the supportable facts can prove about any one of these previously circulated tracks, and if they stop with the insult of telling people this is all to their benefit. It's not to my benefit, it's to their benefit. Leave these things off the boards and people won't feel the need for a more just rendering of reality. Don't, and this will likely erupt again. |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 15:07 |
Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:13 |
GratefulFan wrote:Holly's argument was that a member of the Fanthology ratted Fuller out and provided a quote from Inu apparently giving himself away as a member of the Fanthology.Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? Inu is not a member of the Fanthology. What is it with people and their inability to read? |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:15 |
GratefulFan wrote:I'm utterly amazed at the amount of text you write when you clearly have no idea what went down behind the scenes.cmsdrums wrote: Great thread (when on topic) by the way - I hope the original poster sticks around and isn't put off by the nonsense between sensible replies.The authoritarian, self-serving and obfuscating nature of some influential collectors is completely on topic. Certainly 'what exists' is related to 'how likely am I to hear it before I die'? Not very likely if the bullying, crushing monopolists aren't held to account by people who are paying sufficient attention to see through it all, and particularly to see through the convenient boogieman of David Fuller, who has become whoever they need him to be in any moment. Thief of everything or virtually nothing as it serves them. How can people not see through this? People need to be reminded that the Fanthology blow up over last year was over ONE song - an alternate version of Roger Taylor's 'Is it Me', which Fuller denied having only from the Fanthology archives. With the exception of the other track that caused his initial expulsion (before he was invited back) that is all it was about last year. Now it's about whatever they want it to be, as is convenient. It's truly a bit unbelievable to me that so many people buy into this so thoroughly. I'd love to see the same apathy if it was competition for your cell phone provider. I'd love to see the same mindless shouty cheering for some other power trying to crush the marketplace for it's own benefit. Fuller is not alone. There ARE people who simply have a 'sharing' mindset rather than a 'hoarding' mindset and they should be allowed to compete without being bullied and badgered at every turn by extreme self interest. See here for a recent example: link I agree that these conversations are rarely productive and I apologize for any distraction I contributed to that made the thread unpleasant or discouraging reading for anybody. I'll try to be done now. But these things almost always crop up because of the words or actions of collectors. It can be avoided if some would stop the casual savaging of David Fuller well beyond what the supportable facts can prove about any one of these previously circulated tracks, and if they stop with the insult of telling people this is all to their benefit. It's not to my benefit, it's to their benefit. Leave these things off the boards and people won't feel the need for a more just rendering of reality. Don't, and this will likely erupt again. Just give it a rest already and find something more productive to do with your time. |
cmsdrums 15.05.2013 15:18 |
Thanks guys for the replies on 'Let Me In' - if it's from The Works I fear it'll have that dreadful drum sound that the rest of the album has!! |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 15:26 |
Lord Gaga wrote: I'm utterly amazed at the amount of text you write when you clearly have no idea what went down behind the scenes. Just give it a rest already and find something more productive to do with your time.Unless Queenzone is the equivalent of Iran you don't get to play 'behind the scenes' BS. The entire scene was played out on a 20 page thread and people did backflips to prove an unprovable case based solely on their rage and shitty assumptions. At the end of all that most of them erased their posts. No objective or fair person would yak about 'behind the scenes' given the gravity of the accusations and the knowable facts. Get real. So with all due respect, f behind the scenes, f the frequent technique of belittling people who object to this crap, and f cyberbullying David Fuller out of self interest because that is EXACTLY what this is. YOU find something more productive to do with your time. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:31 |
Were you there, with your rarities – which were being used for trades currently in progress but incidentally fell through at the same time – on the line and being used by someone who distributed them without asking first? Thought not. Get back to me when you've done something productive with your time apart from making baseless, shitty assumptions. |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 15:33 |
Get back to the rest of us when you can make sense. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:34 |
Are you sure you don't want to pad that out to about 17 paragraphs? Because you were actually concise there. Surely you didn't mean to do that. |
Holly2003 15.05.2013 15:37 |
Lord Gaga wrote:GratefulFan wrote:Holly's argument was that a member of the Fanthology ratted Fuller out and provided a quote from Inu apparently giving himself away as a member of the Fanthology. Inu is not a member of the Fanthology. What is it with people and their inability to read?Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? Fair enough. Apologies for not knowing all the secrets of your secret group ;) Overall however my points stand.In usual fashion real wizard picked a little snippet from a post and ignored the rest. Here's my original comment: "errr..You are the one doing the long speeches, not me. You are the one who keeps bringing up this issue on the forum, not me. Your group of traders are the ones who brought the Fuller issue on to the forum, not me, Your little group are the ones who ratted Fuller to QPL, and boasted about it here, not me. You are the one threatening to cut off the Sharing Forum, not me. In contrast, I suggested you do all your dirty laundry off the forum. If I wasn't for your endless whining about it here, your self-serving indignation and threats, I wouldn't be commenting about it at all because I could give a flying fuck what a bunch of whiny children do with their toys." Simply put, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up all of this stuff on Queenzone. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:42 |
I agree – I have no idea why this is being brought up on QZ. Fuller did what he did, he tried to profit from it (which messed up a lot of future trades for the time being), but there was no reason to bring it to QZ. He's been named, he's been shamed, so it should die now. And the secrets are trying to remain secrets! That's why it's a secret group! Gahhh, I'll need to have a talk with our overlord, John D., about all of this. |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 15:48 |
Lord Gaga wrote: Are you sure you don't want to pad that out to about 17 paragraphs? Because you were actually concise there. Surely you didn't mean to do that.As we've seen in recent weeks it's easy to be brief when you're a bully or a bigot. Brevity can only assist the kind of condescension that depends on connecting with emotion and the worst of human nature. Appeals to reason and fairness however can take both words and time, and to me those principles are worth my efforts. I'm rarely talking to people like you when I type anyway, I'm talking to the people around us that are capable of unpopular perspectives, empathy and thought unburdened by self interested bullshit. |
GratefulFan 15.05.2013 15:49 |
Lord Gaga wrote: I agree – I have no idea why this is being brought up on QZ. Fuller did what he did, he tried to profit from it (which messed up a lot of future trades for the time being), but there was no reason to bring it to QZ. He's been named, he's been shamed, so it should die now. And the secrets are trying to remain secrets! That's why it's a secret group! Gahhh, I'll need to have a talk with our overlord, John D., about all of this.More like he's been exploited by fascists. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:53 |
You are correct, of course; I do apologize for my terseness. I tend to resort to sarcasm when it comes to mudslinging, usually as a defense aid, but also because I have self-diagnosed ADD and can't spend more than 30 seconds reading something without my eyes going cross. I do just wish we'd all get along, in the long run. I know it's impossible to see right now, but like your appeals to reason and fairness taking words and time, so too do trades that (ultimately) benefit the Queen fan community. Because here's a little secret: QPL will not release the anthologies until both Brian and Roger, err, "don't mind", if you catch my drift. Much as we like to batter Greggy Brooks and Gary Taylor about not releasing what we want, they are fans – diehards, too! – and they'd love more than anything to see this kind of stuff released. But QPL refuse. Morality is a grey issue, of course, and something that's been discussed a million times over. It's like arguing about religion or politics; no one's going to change the other's minds. My appeal is simply for us to coexist and discuss Queen, instead of snipping at each other. |
Lord Gaga 15.05.2013 15:55 |
GratefulFan wrote:Well, we were listening to the Jazz album a lot when the group was formed, which Dave Marsh called a fascist record.Lord Gaga wrote: I agree – I have no idea why this is being brought up on QZ. Fuller did what he did, he tried to profit from it (which messed up a lot of future trades for the time being), but there was no reason to bring it to QZ. He's been named, he's been shamed, so it should die now. And the secrets are trying to remain secrets! That's why it's a secret group! Gahhh, I'll need to have a talk with our overlord, John D., about all of this.More like he's been exploited by fascists. |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 16:01 |
edited double post |
brENsKi 15.05.2013 16:02 |
brENsKi wrote:GratefulFan wrote:for the record: i have NO connection whatsoever with fantology, or any traders or collectors groups. i do not know anyone on here outside of this forum, i certainly do not know real wizard , yourself , holly or in fact any contributors to any discussions i have been involved in. any "bias" you perceive in my posts is purely me calling it how i see it - and you should accept that without typing the kind of bullshit you have above^^^. when you can prove i am wrong i'll accept that, but as this stands it's opinion vs opinion, nothing more...and that makes mine no less valid than yours. incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onLord Gaga wrote: Are you sure you don't want to pad that out to about 17 paragraphs? Because you were actually concise there. Surely you didn't mean to do that.As we've seen in recent weeks it's easy to be brief when you're a bully or a bigot. Brevity can only assist the kind of condescension that depends on connecting with emotion and the worst of human nature. Appeals to reason and fairness however can take both words and time, and to me those principles are worth my efforts. I'm rarely talking to people like you when I type anyway, I'm talking to the people around us that are capable of unpopular perspectives, empathy and thought unburdened by self interested bullshit. |
inu-liger 15.05.2013 17:45 |
Lord Gaga wrote:No kidding! I stated very openly, and in some of the biggest threads concerning the DFR/Fanthology fracas, that I was initially invited to participate in the group and was offered a small project to work on as part of the entry requirement. Not sure how Holly2003 missed any of those stated posts, unless he was selectively reading what he wanted to read much like how GF and Panchgani do otherwise.GratefulFan wrote:Holly's argument was that a member of the Fanthology ratted Fuller out and provided a quote from Inu apparently giving himself away as a member of the Fanthology. Inu is not a member of the Fanthology. What is it with people and their inability to read?Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? And I'll state this again for the record but with a little more detail than I previously offered: I was not able to participate in the group due to a lack of time owing to several factors including but not limited to: the Breakthru Atlanta convention (and the show I was playing there), working and prepping for me and my girlfriend's first child, and also very significantly dealing with severe depression and anxiety issues that severely hindered my ability to work on anything outside of my regular job during the last few months of 2011. In fact, I had a separate side project for JSS not related to Fanthology at all that completely fell by the wayside relating to the latter reasons. Been hoping to resume work on it recently, now that I've gotten some other things out of the way and managed to smooth out some of these issues over time. |
Queen fan 15.05.2013 17:51 |
Bohardy wrote: Surely if The Game was intended at some point to be a double-album, we'd have heard this story by now? In all the interviews the band have done since then this has never been mentioned by any of them. The ANATO/ADATR double-album concept has been addressed by Brian a few times, I think, so I find it hard to believe that in 30-odd years he (at least) has never thought to mention that this idea was also considered for The Game. In conclusion, I still think RUB is a WUM.I think he is telling the truth (the arthur of the thread) i can sense it |
inu-liger 15.05.2013 17:52 |
brENsKi wrote: incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onScary to think that GratefulFan, if I am not mistaken, claimed to be a teacher. I'd hate to see her interactions with students who don't agree with her teaching views... |
Queen fan 15.05.2013 17:58 |
Togg wrote: This is without doubt the most interesting topic in years, I remember reading somewhere around the time of The Game being recorded that dozens of tracks were recorded and not used. At the time I was very excited about this but over time I forgot about it. I have never heard any stories about The Game being a double album but it makes perfect sense from what I can remember at the time. I have never understood why if they have decent tracks in the bank they have not done more with them, it doesnt make business sense given the desire from the public to hear rare Freddie tracks to hold them back, unless they are truly not up to standard... but people keep saying there are some good ones in there.... Why would QP not wish them released? I get why collectors don't but not the band? Either way it would seem unlikely they will ever come out now officially, the time has passed and every day the reason to release them gets diluted. Great topic very interestingIt could be because they give the Game away too much, they are too overt. |
dowens 15.05.2013 18:53 |
It's been a while since the original poster posted. |
John S Stuart 15.05.2013 19:39 |
dowens wrote: It's been a while since the original poster posted. That is because he wanted you to believe in a 4 minute Seven Seas of Rhye which did not exist in the first place. "Look I must be telling you the truth" - as he holds up fake evidence to prove his point. Gullible's Travels! |
Queen fan 15.05.2013 19:48 |
John S Stuart wrote:like i said i think he was telling the truth i sense he wasdowens wrote: It's been a while since the original poster posted.That is because he wanted you to believe in a 4 minute Seven Seas of Rhye which did not exist in the first place. "Look I must be telling you the truth" - as he holds up fake evidence to prove his point. Gullible's Travels! he could not examine the thing on eBay he only saw the title of it and it concurred with what he already knew. so i would not link him to being untruthful based upon someone selling a faked version of it on eBay |
tcc 15.05.2013 19:55 |
GratefulFan wrote: link “It was selfish at first, I wanted a space where I could see my collection, for me and my friends,” he said. But he decided that the art should be shared. After extensive renovations, the building opened as a public art space in 2007. Classy!Sharing of a painting or sculpture is different from sharing music. A viewer cannot replicate the painting or sculpture whereas music can be downloaded and many copies can be made. Worse still, the people who copy the music can pass on to other people as though he was the original uploader. |
Queen fan 15.05.2013 19:57 |
tcc wrote:GratefulFan wrote: link “It was selfish at first, I wanted a space where I could see my collection, for me and my friends,” he said. But he decided that the art should be shared. After extensive renovations, the building opened as a public art space in 2007. Classy!nowthere are 3d printers and scanners so that will no longer be true Sharing of a painting or sculpture is different from sharing music. A viewer cannot replicate the painting or sculpture whereas music can be downloaded and many copies can be made. Worse still, the people who copy the music can pass on to other people as though he was the original uploader. |
Queen fan 15.05.2013 20:01 |
and the technology to 3d scan will soon be inside a hand held device like a phone so someone could just walk around a sculpture and get its 3d dimensions load the info into their 3d scan machine and out pops a full sized replica same goes for pantings, they could scan the exact surface and pigmentation types and then go home and out of their machine pops a old master. |
waunakonor 15.05.2013 20:24 |
I like how blame for this particular shit-storm is being tossed around everywhere even though most of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of The Real Wizard and myself. Anyway, I would like to order one copy of Deep Ridge, please. Thank you. |
The Real Wizard 16.05.2013 00:50 |
Lord Gaga wrote:Finally, some common sense by page 9. Thank you.GratefulFan wrote:Holly's argument was that a member of the Fanthology ratted Fuller out and provided a quote from Inu apparently giving himself away as a member of the Fanthology. Inu is not a member of the Fanthology. What is it with people and their inability to read?Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? More of this please. Back to the subject at hand now. |
Holly2003 16.05.2013 02:26 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Lord Gaga wrote:Finally, some common sense by page 9. Thank you. More of this please. Back to the subject at hand now.GratefulFan wrote:Holly's argument was that a member of the Fanthology ratted Fuller out and provided a quote from Inu apparently giving himself away as a member of the Fanthology. Inu is not a member of the Fanthology. What is it with people and their inability to read?Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? Or, as you were the one who originally took us away from the subject at hand, why don't you shut your pie hole and let people talk about whatever they want, without you trying to steer the conversation along routes you want it to take. |
Togg 16.05.2013 04:11 |
I remember reading that too, Makes you wonder why they shelved it? That story alone would be worth hearing...
cmsdrums wrote: I recall Greg Brooks saying a few years ago here that he'd heard unreleased Queen songs in the vaults, including at least one track that he virtually guaranteed could be a number 1 single if released as it was so good. This clearly confirms that some of the 'left behind' material isn't second rate (although I suppose Brian and Roger might think it is). It would be nice to know which era this supposed hit single gem comes from, and also to get confirmation that it is a fully completed finished track (it would be difficult to say that it's a great song if it's missing bits or has incomplete vocal parts etc) Great thread (when on topic) by the way - I hope the original poster sticks around and isn't put off by the nonsense between sensible replies. |
tomchristie22 16.05.2013 05:33 |
The first couple of pages were much better reading than what followed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the flood of ethical debate... |
cmsdrums 16.05.2013 08:57 |
Lord Gaga wrote: Were you there, with your rarities – which were being used for trades .Without wishing to get too involved in this argument, but surely the rarities being traded were not yours, they belong to QPL? Fair enough you own the media that this copyright subject material exists on, but I don't think Fuller was trading photos or video of your actual vinyl/mini disc/cassette etc...and so wasn't trading anything of yours?!? |
Lord Gaga 16.05.2013 09:00 |
Oh I don't own any rarities either. Far more time and money went into it from other die-hard collectors. There's more to the Fanthology than just physical collections; sometimes information is even more invaluable. |
GratefulFan 16.05.2013 11:19 |
inu-liger wrote:Jeez. LOL @ both of you.brENsKi wrote: incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onScary to think that GratefulFan, if I am not mistaken, claimed to be a teacher. I'd hate to see her interactions with students who don't agree with her teaching views... |
GratefulFan 16.05.2013 12:09 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Common sense for people who wanted to shift off the main point of the tattling maybe, which was very much a hive mind back chatter effort of a few of the collectors no matter who phoned it in. Classy to let inu take all the blame for what others on this board clearly supported and clearly benefit from.Lord Gaga wrote:Finally, some common sense by page 9. Thank you. More of this please. Back to the subject at hand now.GratefulFan wrote:Holly's argument was that a member of the Fanthology ratted Fuller out and provided a quote from Inu apparently giving himself away as a member of the Fanthology. Inu is not a member of the Fanthology. What is it with people and their inability to read?Lord Gaga wrote: Inu's not a member of Fanthology.He doesn't have to be. What is it with people and the horrible reasoning? Holly's 'your little group' needn't have referred to Fanthology, it could have referred to the little fascist knot of collectors here. That was my point. And it's certainly a wild stretch to characterize his quote as attempting to prove inu was 'giving himself away as a member of Fanthology'. It was of course meant to illustrate that inu had acknowledged reporting on Fuller. You definition of 'common sense' is pretty shaky, unless you mean any sense at all that serves the common goal of collectors. |
John S Stuart 16.05.2013 12:15 |
Better to be a werewolf on the outside than on the inside... |
GratefulFan 16.05.2013 12:27 |
tcc wrote:What is transferable from the example is the spirit of sharing art for the common good and the elevation of society as a whole rather than for the good of a handful of the elite, and the freedom of inclined individuals to take their collections to the world without being bullied and harassed by those who might have opposing interests.GratefulFan wrote: link “It was selfish at first, I wanted a space where I could see my collection, for me and my friends,” he said. But he decided that the art should be shared. After extensive renovations, the building opened as a public art space in 2007. Classy!Sharing of a painting or sculpture is different from sharing music. A viewer cannot replicate the painting or sculpture whereas music can be downloaded and many copies can be made. Worse still, the people who copy the music can pass on to other people as though he was the original uploader. Many, many great art works of course have been replicated and any of us can own a print at a reasonable price as the value is retained in the original. The music collecting world makes its own rules and could shift the exclusivity and value to original physical mediums, or quality, or completeness as they choose in this internet age. Instead they put on their bell bottoms and party like it's 1979. They can be as grabby and elitist as 2013 will allow them, but just STOP telling me it's in my interest. That's so crashingly bloody insulting. |
GratefulFan 16.05.2013 12:28 |
John S Stuart wrote: Better to be a werewolf on the outside than on the inside...Budget fortune cookie? |
brENsKi 16.05.2013 12:45 |
GratefulFan wrote:thus spake the public spokesperson for the dictatorial state of Ignoramiainu-liger wrote:Jeez. LOL @ both of you.brENsKi wrote: incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onScary to think that GratefulFan, if I am not mistaken, claimed to be a teacher. I'd hate to see her interactions with students who don't agree with her teaching views... |
GratefulFan 16.05.2013 13:06 |
Yeah. You misread my post and inu thinks I said i was a teacher. I feel so dumb. OK. I need to be done on this thread because I can feel how annoying it is to other people trying to have a very different conversation. Try not to give me a heart attack by writing stuff it will kill me not to respond to. TIA. |
Fireplace 16.05.2013 13:24 |
GratefulFan wrote: Yeah. You misread my post and inu thinks I said i was a teacher. I feel so dumb. OK. I need to be done on this thread because I can feel how annoying it is to other people trying to have a very different conversation. Try not to give me a heart attack by writing stuff it will kill me not to respond to. TIA.Oh,don't worry, the people actually interested in Queen left a long time ago. As did the topic starter, who was only moaning about such uninteresting things as 20 unreleased Queen songs anyway.. Who needs untalented sods like them when we can have the likes of you and your sparring partners from Phantominatitasmagoriology? |
Holly2003 16.05.2013 13:31 |
brENsKi wrote:GratefulFan wrote:thus spake the public spokesperson for the dictatorial state of Ignoramiainu-liger wrote:Jeez. LOL @ both of you.brENsKi wrote: incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onScary to think that GratefulFan, if I am not mistaken, claimed to be a teacher. I'd hate to see her interactions with students who don't agree with her teaching views... the dictatorial state of Ignoramia -- isn't that a Muse song? |
Rogers Untidy Bottom 16.05.2013 13:40 |
Hi all, Not forgotten about you. I'm making notes of the questions and will answer them as quickly as poss. Hopefully great behind-the-scenes about AKOM tomorrow. Having to work lots of overtime at mo. Popping out in 10 again. How the mighty have fallen, eh? RUB |
John S Stuart 16.05.2013 14:20 |
How patronising... Is that supposed to be big and clever? |
John S Stuart 16.05.2013 14:20 |
Double post |
John S Stuart 16.05.2013 14:22 |
|
brENsKi 16.05.2013 16:27 |
Holly2003 wrote:quite probably. and [like most Muse tracks] as dull as this thread has becomebrENsKi wrote:the dictatorial state of Ignoramia -- isn't that a Muse song?GratefulFan wrote:thus spake the public spokesperson for the dictatorial state of Ignoramiainu-liger wrote:Jeez. LOL @ both of you.brENsKi wrote: incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onScary to think that GratefulFan, if I am not mistaken, claimed to be a teacher. I'd hate to see her interactions with students who don't agree with her teaching views... |
tomchristie22 16.05.2013 16:59 |
Rogers Untidy Bottom wrote: Hi all, Not forgotten about you. I'm making notes of the questions and will answer them as quickly as poss. Hopefully great behind-the-scenes about AKOM tomorrow. Having to work lots of overtime at mo. Popping out in 10 again. How the mighty have fallen, eh? RUBThanks! I'm glad you're still willing to answer questions in the midst of this shit storm |
inu-liger 16.05.2013 18:41 |
GratefulFan wrote: Yeah. You misread my post and inu thinks I said i was a teacher. I feel so dumb.To be very honest, I could have very well been misremembering something you had said a couple years ago, but I could have sworn I recall you saying something in the past about your profession having to do with a school. If I am totally mistaken, if you wish to clarify, feel free to pm me and set the record straight confidentially. I DID emphasize that I might have been wrong about this. It's one of those small details, you know. |
inu-liger 16.05.2013 18:41 |
brENsKi wrote:That comparison wasn't very amusing :PHolly2003 wrote:quite probably. and [like most Muse tracks] as dull as this thread has becomebrENsKi wrote:the dictatorial state of Ignoramia -- isn't that a Muse song?GratefulFan wrote:thus spake the public spokesperson for the dictatorial state of Ignoramiainu-liger wrote:Jeez. LOL @ both of you.brENsKi wrote: incidentally - being popular does not equal being correct...it's more than likely that the "unpopular perspectives" you cite could actually be right and YOU could be wrong....who am i kidding? you're fucking infallible and we should all just accept that and move onScary to think that GratefulFan, if I am not mistaken, claimed to be a teacher. I'd hate to see her interactions with students who don't agree with her teaching views... |
inu-liger 16.05.2013 19:05 |
GratefulFan wrote: Classy to let inu take all the blame for what others on this board clearly supported and clearly benefit from.You make it sound like they put me up to this :-P Let me be clear: I did not consult with ANY one of the Fanthology members prior to putting out the relevant e-mails. I did not seek any approval or backing, this was entirely my own doing right from the get go as soon as I saw what DFR was up to. And my reasoning for that was NOT to do with Fanthology, it was to do with the fact that DFR was committing a highly illegal act for the intent of profiting off material that was not legally his to sell digitally, and VERY openly at that, in order to rip off people. Any benefit to the Fanthology would have been indirect and unfortunately for people like you open to broad misinterpretation. Holly's 'your little group' needn't have referred to Fanthology, it could have referred to the little fascist knot of collectors here. That was my point. And it's certainly a wild stretch to characterize his quote as attempting to prove inu was 'giving himself away as a member of Fanthology'. It was of course meant to illustrate that inu had acknowledged reporting on Fuller.Credit where it's due, I do appreciate that you finally acknowledge this. Thank you very much. You definition of 'common sense' is pretty shaky, unless you mean any sense at all that serves the common goal of collectors.And two steps back, sadly. I think Bob's "common sense" comment was to do with the fact Holly was trying to twist me around to look like I was an actual member of Fanthology when in fact I had already said, and a few times at that, that I was never officially in the group despite being invited initially. And you did play into that before you finally backtracked after at least TWO other people said I was not in the group, GF. Would appreciate a small apology for that, but I have my doubts I'll get that given your refusal to apologize for other attacks on my character in the past, so I'll probably be happy enough with the 2nd last quote for now otherwise. |
inu-liger 16.05.2013 23:10 |
link |
Queen fan 16.05.2013 23:20 |
John S Stuart wrote: Better to be a werewolf on the outside than on the inside...what a very good saying! a wolf in sheep's clothing is the same saying |
Queen fan 16.05.2013 23:24 |
inu-liger wrote:What a shame, your admiral acts are out shadowed by your others.GratefulFan wrote: Classy to let inu take all the blame for what others on this board clearly supported and clearly benefit from.You make it sound like they put me up to this :-P Let me be clear: I did not consult with ANY one of the Fanthology members prior to putting out the relevant e-mails. I did not seek any approval or backing, this was entirely my own doing right from the get go as soon as I saw what DFR was up to. And my reasoning for that was NOT to do with Fanthology, it was to do with the fact that DFR was committing a highly illegal act for the intent of profiting off material that was not legally his to sell digitally, and VERY openly at that, in order to rip off people. Any benefit to the Fanthology would have been indirect and unfortunately for people like you open to broad misinterpretation.Holly's 'your little group' needn't have referred to Fanthology, it could have referred to the little fascist knot of collectors here. That was my point. And it's certainly a wild stretch to characterize his quote as attempting to prove inu was 'giving himself away as a member of Fanthology'. It was of course meant to illustrate that inu had acknowledged reporting on Fuller.Credit where it's due, I do appreciate that you finally acknowledge this. Thank you very much.You definition of 'common sense' is pretty shaky, unless you mean any sense at all that serves the common goal of collectors.And two steps back, sadly. I think Bob's "common sense" comment was to do with the fact Holly was trying to twist me around to look like I was an actual member of Fanthology when in fact I had already said, and a few times at that, that I was never officially in the group despite being invited initially. And you did play into that before you finally backtracked after at least TWO other people said I was not in the group, GF. Would appreciate a small apology for that, but I have my doubts I'll get that given your refusal to apologize for other attacks on my character in the past, so I'll probably be happy enough with the 2nd last quote for now otherwise. |
inu-liger 16.05.2013 23:36 |
Queen fan wrote: What a shame, your admiral acts are out shadowed by your others.Whatever |
inu-liger 16.05.2013 23:59 |
Anyways, let's please get back on topic |
cmsdrums 17.05.2013 07:50 |
I'm happy to believe that The Game MAY have a lot more leftover tracks than we know about. Is it too difficult to believe that CLTCL, SASS, CS and SM were the ONLY four songs that came out of those initial 1979 sessions? I would guess that to get four songs that actually made the final album cut a year later, a lot more ideas would have been worked on, and some possibly to near completion, before they werer discarded. Equally, over the timeline that we're talking about for The Game session in total (at least four concerted sessions according to Roger's Untidy Bottom, rather than just to as per the offical line), did Queen as a band really only produce the handful of songs that we hear on The Game, plus A Human Body and It's A Beautiful Day? You can add to the equation that The Game was their most musically 'simple' album to that point, both in how it was recorded and how it was put together musically (everything from less drum mics used to less layered guitar parts), so would it really have produced a lot less material than albums such as SHA, Races etc.. that seemingly had less studio time spent on them, but were far more complex and had far more tracks? This is far from definitive proof, but I'm happy to go along for the ride so far at the expense of some of the other tripe that gets posted on these forums. |
saj ditta 18.05.2013 14:57 |
yes i was also around in those studios i came across a demo they were the band not inc sneakydeacy the one that ran away with all the money?i belive it was supposed to be released on queen 2 but for some reason the band werent happy with the final mix the tracks name is SIT ON MY PENIS HAHAHAHAHHAHA NOW THATS FUNNY I GOT ALL OF YOU YOU YOU SILLY LOWLIFE FAGGOTTS X |
saj ditta 18.05.2013 15:02 |
i was also around the studios in the 70s and came across a gem that was supposed to be released on queen 2 but due to the final mix was not released.also to be feat on boxset in 2006 wich daint happend i believe the tracks name is SIT ON MY PENIS SANG BY FREDD HAHAHAH X |
dowens 18.05.2013 16:07 |
What a moron. Anyway...The Game was supposed to be a double LP, but is their shortest album. Interesting. I'd love to know more about The Miracle sessions. Is there anything else, or did they release most everything? There seems to be quite a bit of material (b-sides, etc) released from that period already. |
Thistle 18.05.2013 18:24 |
dowens wrote: What a moron. Anyway...The Game was supposed to be a double LP, but is their shortest album. Interesting. I'd love to know more about The Miracle sessions. Is there anything else, or did they release most everything? There seems to be quite a bit of material (b-sides, etc) released from that period already.There's been a lot of talk about "The Game" being a double LP. This appears to be common knowledge, but somewhere along the line I missed that: any pointers where I can read that as gospel? Or a video/audio link from an interview? Or is it something from this very thread that I've managed to skip over??? (it is getting very lengthy lol) Cheers!! |
Brandon36 18.05.2013 19:33 |
What the f*** |
scottmax 18.05.2013 19:49 |
seems like this thread has died a death then? and the topic starter was full of shit after all |
brENsKi 19.05.2013 03:57 |
no. it doesn't seem he was "full of shit" balancing all the evidence it's inconclusive - either way whether he was genuine or full of shit which is much as i implied (could be the case) in my first reply |
dysan 19.05.2013 05:58 |
I'm exhausted after reading all that. Well done gang, good thread on the whole. |
Pim Derks 19.05.2013 12:36 |
link Just in case someone has 6000 pounds stuffed in a drawer somewhere... |
mooghead 19.05.2013 13:25 |
You know exactly what it is..... |
mooghead 19.05.2013 13:34 |
People still banging on about The Game being a double album... is this a myth created by this thread? Has this ever been raised in any way prior to this thread? Link? |
The Real Wizard 19.05.2013 13:39 |
Sometimes secrets can be kept for that long. We didn't know that Springsteen had recorded an entire follow-up to Darkness until the boxed set came out a couple years back. |
cmsdrums 19.05.2013 15:14 |
Pim Derks wrote: link Just in case someone has 6000 pounds stuffed in a drawer somewhere... Would they really have a whole new reel to reel tape for just this track? Surely it would be on the same tale as the other work from these sessions? Furthermore, if this genuine, why is this not in the possession of QPL? Might it not simply be a copy of the original master? |
Flash Jazz 19.05.2013 17:49 |
So how did we finally find out that the Seven Seasons of Rhye was fake? Did JSS buy it? Anyone else? Who ruled it a fake :p |
dowens 19.05.2013 18:25 |
Everything is popping up now, huh? :) |
tomchristie22 20.05.2013 03:02 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Sometimes secrets can be kept for that long. We didn't know that Springsteen had recorded an entire follow-up to Darkness until the boxed set came out a couple years back.But where exactly is the logic in keeping it a secret? |
brENsKi 20.05.2013 05:07 |
i don't think it had to be a deliberate act of secrecy - just an unintentional one. think about it, how many things do we do in our working lives that we never tell anyone about? well recording music is the same. not all ideas ever get talked about again because they were unimportant just after conception, so they're certainly not worth talking about as some "lazarus" project |
inu-liger 20.05.2013 05:45 |
tomchristie22 wrote:Look no further than the impatience and greed among some on the boardThe Real Wizard wrote: Sometimes secrets can be kept for that long. We didn't know that Springsteen had recorded an entire follow-up to Darkness until the boxed set came out a couple years back.But where exactly is the logic in keeping it a secret? |
Fone Bone 23.05.2013 09:54 |
My two cents: From what I understand, Fanthology is a group of collectors who devote much time and money to research, acquire and collect Queen rarities. Good for them. If they want to keep the rarities to themselves, patly to ensure that their collection retains value and to have leverage to have access to other items, that's quite fine. If they want to share them for free with a larger fanbase, that's great. We just can't act like a whiny, needy community with a sense of entitlement and call them evil hoarders. You thank the collector who lends a painting to a museum for it to be displayed for the general public, you don't go after the ones who keep theirs in their living room. On the other hand I do resent QPL for not working on the Box Sets, from the proprietary archives and why not by buying a thing or two they don't have from private collectors ? |
The Real Wizard 23.05.2013 11:37 |
Fone Bone - thank you for your common sense and rational understanding of the situation. Flying spaghetti monster bless. |
mooghead 23.05.2013 14:01 |
"On the other hand I do resent QPL for not working on the Box Sets" The 'box sets' or 'Anthology' are a myth created by people on Queen fan sites around the time of the Beatles Anthology, who created so much discussion about what might be on a Queen anthology that they actually believed it was a future release. "You thank the collector who lends a painting to a museum for it to be displayed for the general public, you don't go after the ones who keep theirs in their living room. " A painting is a one off original. If the Louvre could create an exact replica of the Mona Lisa and give it away to the extent that you could not tell it apart from the original thus changing it from the most valuable painting on the planet to being worthless, they would do it? Can the 'fanthology' (fucking horrid name) please just LEND me the stuff they have? Please? I will give it back, honest. ;-) |
inu-liger 23.05.2013 17:03 |
mooghead wrote: The 'box sets' or 'Anthology' are a myth created by people on Queen fan sites around the time of the Beatles Anthology, who created so much discussion about what might be on a Queen anthology that they actually believed it was a future release.I don't think it's a myth, moog. Several people have all pointed to an early '90s fan club magazine as the initial source of the box set news. And Greg Brooks has made several vague remarks related to the box set over the past decade as well. |
Penetration_Guru 23.05.2013 18:48 |
What the fuck happened here???? Which committee of fuckwits decided that a) there should be a name for collectors of particularly rare material, and b) that it should be something as Bieber-esque as "Fanthology"? I can see people I previously thought of as intelligent acting like cunts, and failing to give the cunts the short shrift that they would otherwise rightly receive. Is this the Twilight Zone? |
inu-liger 23.05.2013 18:57 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Is this the Twilight Zone?Apparently so |
scottmax 24.05.2013 16:37 |
mooghead wrote: "On the other hand I do resent QPL for not working on the Box Sets" The 'box sets' or 'Anthology' are a myth created by people on Queen fan sites around the time of the Beatles Anthology, who created so much discussion about what might be on a Queen anthology that they actually believed it was a future release. "You thank the collector who lends a painting to a museum for it to be displayed for the general public, you don't go after the ones who keep theirs in their living room. " A painting is a one off original. If the Louvre could create an exact replica of the Mona Lisa and give it away to the extent that you could not tell it apart from the original thus changing it from the most valuable painting on the planet to being worthless, they would do it? Can the 'fanthology' (fucking horrid name) please just LEND me the stuff they have? Please? I will give it back, honest. ;-) |
scottmax 24.05.2013 16:40 |
if I'm not mistaken, while describing the Freddie/Brian version of She Blows Hot and Cold in the Freddie box set, wasn't the 'forthcoming Queen' box set mentioned? I'll have to dig mine out and check |
greaserkat 24.05.2013 19:15 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: What the fuck happened here???? Which committee of fuckwits decided that a) there should be a name for collectors of particularly rare material, and b) that it should be something as Bieber-esque as "Fanthology"? I can see people I previously thought of as intelligent acting like cunts, and failing to give the cunts the short shrift that they would otherwise rightly receive. Is this the Twilight Zone?That's something you should ask John about... |
inu-liger 24.05.2013 21:09 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: b) that it should be something as Bieber-esque as "Fanthology"?Honestly, I think it's a much more creative name than something utterly retarded like "Belieber!" (And thank GOD that even the most zealous among us are nowhere near as horrendous as Bieber's fan base, on that aside!) If you were to come up with an alternate name for a fan-produced anthology set, what do you think would be appropriate? :-) |
tero! 48531 25.05.2013 02:21 |
inu-liger wrote: If you were to come up with an alternate name for a fan-produced anthology set, what do you think would be appropriate? :-)It's nothing more than a cheesy pun coined after the backstory was created. The whole fan-anthology is nothing more than a smokescreen to spin David Fuller as the bad guy and the other traders as the good guys. The traders have been very vocal about their concern for the legal rights of QP, the financial profits of any future QP anthology releases, and for the distribution rights of the owner of the physical product. Surely their OWN actions would be limited by the same concerns, wouldn't they?? |
inu-liger 25.05.2013 11:30 |
tero! 48531 wrote:You couldn't be any more WRONG, Tero! The Fanthology name had always been there even going back to the invitation I received back in summer 2011.inu-liger wrote: If you were to come up with an alternate name for a fan-produced anthology set, what do you think would be appropriate? :-)It's nothing more than a cheesy pun coined after the backstory was created. The whole fan-anthology is nothing more than a smokescreen to spin David Fuller as the bad guy and the other traders as the good guys. |
The Valyard 25.05.2013 12:16 |
Inuluger can I ask you to post that invitation or is that too personal. If you are not a member and fanthology is an open secret why not bring this to light. I mean it would be good to see if the back staory was fabricated and if it wasn't maybe that would calm the board down a bit. |
The Real Wizard 25.05.2013 12:18 |
inu-liger wrote:^ I second that.tero! 48531 wrote:You couldn't be any more WRONG, Tero! The Fanthology name had always been there even going back to the invitation I received back in summer 2011.inu-liger wrote: If you were to come up with an alternate name for a fan-produced anthology set, what do you think would be appropriate? :-)It's nothing more than a cheesy pun coined after the backstory was created. The whole fan-anthology is nothing more than a smokescreen to spin David Fuller as the bad guy and the other traders as the good guys. Please stop talking about things you have no idea about. What is seen on the forum is rarely the full extent of what actually happens. It's like saying you know what happens between politicians and lobbyists because you heard it on the news. So let's all repeat after me... I don't know everything - and I accept it. I don't know everything - and I accept it. I don't know everything - and I accept it. Do not change the mantra until you are in the thick of things. Or you can continue to pretend that you know and criticize the accounts of those who do know. Up to you... |
tero! 48531 25.05.2013 12:22 |
inu-liger wrote:I suppose it's possible, but there's no way to prove it, is there? And there's even less proof to believe the group had any altruistic motivation.tero! 48531 wrote:You couldn't be any more WRONG, Tero! The Fanthology name had always been there even going back to the invitation I received back in summer 2011.inu-liger wrote: If you were to come up with an alternate name for a fan-produced anthology set, what do you think would be appropriate? :-)It's nothing more than a cheesy pun coined after the backstory was created. The whole fan-anthology is nothing more than a smokescreen to spin David Fuller as the bad guy and the other traders as the good guys. I could just take your word for it, if only you hadn't ruined your credibility with your continuous public campaign against David Fuller... Such a shame. :/ |
dowens 25.05.2013 15:03 |
And now the original author has left.... |
The Real Wizard 25.05.2013 15:09 |
tero! 48531 wrote: And there's even less proof to believe the group had any altruistic motivation.Exactly, because nobody in the group has ever shared anything here. Have you heard the BBC version of White Queen ? Good thing you didn't thank a fanthology member for that, since you wouldn't want to look like a fool... |
inu-liger 25.05.2013 16:10 |
|
The Valyard 25.05.2013 16:45 |
My favourite word is reasonable. Thats all I ask for someone to talk to me in a reasonable manner. |
The Real Wizard 25.05.2013 17:15 |
^ agreed. |
inu-liger 25.05.2013 17:27 |
|
scallyuk 25.05.2013 18:40 |
Many (apart from nevermore) of the BBC sessions were around long long before fanthology, , They were circulated in the days of cassette bootlegs produced by a Bootleg supplier called Scouse Pie tapes back in the late 70's ad early 80's. As were a whole range o varying quality live shows including Leeds 82, and the original Liverpool 74 and 75 boots. . The newer rarities were largely shared before Fanthlolgy came into existence (perhaps by people who are now members) or by Dave F who depending on who you believe went rogue after he joined or obtained some of his rarities via other means before he joined the group. If the rarities he shared were from fanthology I suspect that some fanthology memberswere sharing privately with him via 3rd parties - perhaps they still are. As it stands I expect that both parties, DF ad Fanhology, are wishing he hadn't; joined. There seems - from my perspective - very little that was shared publicly by Fanthology once they were in existence. What they shared between themselves is anyones guess. |
Thistle 25.05.2013 18:55 |
scallyuk wrote: Many (apart from nevermore) of the BBC sessions were around long long before fanthologyTrue, but not in the best quality: JSS has given us ALL of those tracks, direct from the masters, shared in FLAC. Like you say, you don't know what they've been sharing, and just because there are a lot of tracks that went viral before fanthology, doesn't mean that some of its members were not the original source to begin with (i.e, they may not have shared directly, but have traded with someone who then shared freely). It's ALL speculation. As I've said before, let's wait and see :) |