fairydandy 13.10.2004 06:17 |
I am just wondering about the four tracks that Freddie sang at the Dominion in 1988 at the Time musical. I wrote to Greg Brooks enquiring as to why these were omitted from Freddie's Solo collection, and whether or not they would appear on the Queen box set (silly question in hindsight). Anyway Greg replied: _________________________________________________ "Hi fd We could not find a good quality version of those recordings and even Dave Clark could not lay his hands on the masters. I did try hard to get that stuff. No, it will not be on any Queen box – definitely not. It is not Queen. Maybe, if we get it some day, we’ll offer it on a future FM product? Does anyone have a GREAT quality version? Regards GB" _________________________________________________ I think most of us probably have three (It's In Everyone Of Us, In My Defence and Born To Rock and Roll)of the four tracks in MP3 format. Two of mine are in poor condition, and one in much better condition (It's In Everyone Of Us)...anyway, do soundboard copies of all four tracks actually exist anywhere, or at least in the quality of It's In Everyone Of Us? |
pma 13.10.2004 06:20 |
I'll just say YES and pretend that I have raw sbd version of the whole performance. |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 06:28 |
pma<br><font size=1>Chat Op. #3</font> wrote: I'll just say YES and pretend that I have raw sbd version of the whole performance.Why say anything, if you have nothing to say? |
John S Stuart 13.10.2004 07:36 |
Fairydandy: "I am just wondering about the four tracks that Freddie sang at the Dominion in 1988 at the Time musical". First: this has been asked here many times before. Second: Sorry to be rude, or to burst any bubbles, but Greg was being a diplomat. (Others may say a downright liar, but I am not so inclined). I often amaze at how Queen fans do not accept subtle hints, yet complain like bugg*ry when hit over the head with a metaphorical sledgehammer. Of course the tracks exist in perfect soundboard quality, but the legistics of a public release are a virtual minefield of copyright entanglements. The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. End of Story. Now once upon a time Greg used to say as much, but then the poor guy was always hit with smart-Alex replies like "What if Dave Clark died", or "Cliff Richard was blackmailed" and other such childish none-sense. Therefore over the past four or so years it has just evolved into an easier and quicker explanation to say that "They do not exist". I also suggest it is a bad idea to send Greg your MP3's - because if they cannot release the original, then there is no chance that yours would ever go further than his recycle bin. |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 08:32 |
John S Stuart wrote: Fairydandy: "I am just wondering about the four tracks that Freddie sang at the Dominion in 1988 at the Time musical". First: this has been asked here many times before. Second: Sorry to be rude, or to burst any bubbles, but Greg was being a diplomat. (Others may say a downright liar, but I am not so inclined). I often amaze at how Queen fans do not accept subtle hints, yet complain like bugg*ry when hit over the head with a metaphorical sledgehammer. Of course the tracks exist in perfect soundboard quality, but the legistics of a public release are a virtual minefield of copyright entanglements. The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. End of Story. Now once upon a time Greg used to say as much, but then the poor guy was always hit with smart-Alex replies like "What if Dave Clark died", or "Cliff Richard was blackmailed" and other such childish none-sense. Therefore over the past four or so years it has just evolved into an easier and quicker explanation to say that "They do not exist". I also suggest it is a bad idea to send Greg your MP3's - because if they cannot release the original, then there is no chance that yours would ever go further than his recycle bin.First. I didn't know it had been asked here before. Is it some kind of a rule that we can only ask new questions here? Second. I will point Greg to your reply, to see if that is indeed the case. Third. I have no intention of sending Greg anything in MP3 format, (or any format) and never did have. Forth. Thanks for your reply, I bow down to your amazing Queen knowledge, even if do come across as an arrogant wanker. ;-) |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 08:34 |
..Unless of course you are Greg? ;-) |
Penis - Vagina 13.10.2004 09:24 |
Stuart lives in his own little dreamworld. You got your answer from Greg, "nuff said" as the children say. |
John S Stuart 13.10.2004 09:30 |
$1241.60: Why is it that everybody thinks they are a bloo*y expert? So what exactly was YOUR contribution to the FM boxset? OK. Let's see, I'll go listen to the unreleased soundboard version - while you, Fairydandy and Greg argue amongst yourselves about it's existence. Besides, I am NOT the ONLY one with this superior quality material in this 'zone, but if others wish to remain in the "closet", then it is not up to me to disclose, so perhaps you are correct, I do live "in... (my) ...own little dreamworld", but it is a world that you will never be part of. |
Penis - Vagina 13.10.2004 11:15 |
My contribution was $156 and lots of love. Most of us here are Queen fans. We like to share stuff, commiserate about Queen Productions, help out each other in regards to items which actually exist for all of us. I can't quite figure out what your purpose is here other than to toy with people, brag, act like some sort of God. Whether you're the Zone's biggest liar or biggest dick is up for debate, but either way you're quite transparent. |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 11:37 |
John S Stuart wrote: $1241.60: Why is it that everybody thinks they are a bloo*y expert? So what exactly was YOUR contribution to the FM boxset? OK. Let's see, I'll go listen to the unreleased soundboard version - while you, Fairydandy and Greg argue amongst yourselves about it's existence. Besides, I am NOT the ONLY one with this superior quality material in this 'zone, but if others wish to remain in the "closet", then it is not up to me to disclose, so perhaps you are correct, I do live "in... (my) ...own little dreamworld", but it is a world that you will never be part of.Now where exactly have I been "arguing" about the existence of this material? I asked a civil question, and that was "do soundboard copies of all four tracks actually exist anywhere?" Jeeeesus bloody christ, some people. |
John S Stuart 13.10.2004 12:34 |
$1241.60: "I can't quite figure out what your purpose is here other than to toy with people, brag, act like some sort of God. Whether you're the Zone's biggest liar or biggest dick is up for debate, but either way you're quite transparent". I had no other purpose than answer a simple question. I was neither rude or insulting, nor did I lie or be a dick about it. I answered in clear simple terms, the best way I knew how. Whether YOU believe the answer or not is your perogative. If I was rude it was not in my original reply, but surprisingly enough, in reply to your own rudeness. So I do not expect that you can complain too much about that. At least I am honest enough NOT to hide behind some silly name, or make snide or negative comments each time a 'zoner asks a simple question. Finally; you have no idea what I have shared or not, so please take your preaching and your biting envy and misinformation elsewhere. Fairydandy: "argue" was an expression for the benefit of $1241.60. It was not meant to be taken literally. |
AC 13.10.2004 12:39 |
$1241.60 wrote: My contribution was $156 and lots of love. Most of us here are Queen fans. We like to share stuff, commiserate about Queen Productions, help out each other in regards to items which actually exist for all of us. I can't quite figure out what your purpose is here other than to toy with people, brag, act like some sort of God. Whether you're the Zone's biggest liar or biggest dick is up for debate, but either way you're quite transparent.Sorry, but I think you are doing something wrong. I understand your point of view about sharing, you know, but I think there's no use in attacking John S Stuart in this way. You're right if you say that his post was too rude and not adeguated to the situation. But calling him a liar, it's really stupid for me. He has proved his knowledge many times (and not only here, obviously) and I really like to read his posts because usually I find there something new and interesting about Queen and their music (I could say the same thing about other posters too). I hope I will be able to read them again in the future. About calling him a dick... well, it's your opinion... you have my permission :-) |
Adam Baboolal 13.10.2004 15:07 |
Hold on a minute...
John S Stuart wrote: Therefore over the past four or so years it has just evolved into an easier and quicker explanation to say that "They do not exist".John, where does it say "They do not exist?" In fact, Greg's reply points out the opposite opinion, "Maybe, if we get it some day, we’ll offer it on a future FM product?" Now, that's pretty obvious that he acknowledges their existence. So guys, let's not fight about it, huh? John, a simpler response, they do exist but are caught up in too many legal entanglements for it to be used, would suffice. Peace, Adam. |
Maz 13.10.2004 16:38 |
John S Stuart wrote: The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. End of Story.Now, for the sake of those of us who know little about copyright law (Hi Kes), I assume that these tracks do not fall into the same category as the the Time studio tracks (that were released on the box set) because, well, they were performed live at a benefit performance. I also assume that this is the reason that Dave Clark owns the rights, and since no previous agreement was ever hashed out, trying to get Freddie's estate, Dave Clark, and Sir Cliff to agree on a new deal that gives QP an incentive to put it out is not cost effective. |
John S Stuart 13.10.2004 17:24 |
Adam: "John, where does it say "They do not exist?" In fact, Greg's reply points out the opposite opinion, "Maybe, if we get it some day, we’ll offer it on a future FM product?" Now, that's pretty obvious that he acknowledges their existence". Fair point. But then again, why would Greg ask "Does anyone have a GREAT quality version?", if QP had access to the master tapes? Zeni the Wet Sprocket: "Now, for the sake of those of us who know little about copyright law... I assume that these tracks do not fall into the same category as the the Time studio tracks (that were released on the box set) because, well, they were performed live at a benefit performance. Yes, that is correct. Also the studio tracks were officially released in the first place. (Remixes were also courtesy of the Dave Clark ownership). Adam: "...a simpler response, they do exist but are caught up in too many legal entanglements for it to be used, would suffice". AC: "About calling him a dick... well, it's your opinion... you have my permission :-)" Pardon me - I am now a dick because I responed correctly to an other 'zoners question? I do not think my original reply was either insultive or over the top. However, if you guys believe I am a dick for responding to this question, why should I respond to others? Is it any wonder that regular zoners are being chased away? |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 17:50 |
I e mailed Greg back as I said I would and this is the EXACT message I sent. _________________________________________________ Hi again Greg Sorry to be a pain, but I have been asking on Queenzone about the Time tracks and a certain Mr Stuart, says that you know that these tracks exist, but it is easier to give the answer you gave me. link I'm not trying to involve you in any disputes, I was just asking a civil question that's all...(and if it is easier for you to respond how you did, I would understand that too) Whatever ....(hurry up with that boxed set!!) ;-) Regards fd _________________________________________________ Here is Greg's exact reply (please note he gives me permission to reprint it) _________________________________________________ Hello fd What I told you is the honest truth. To the best of my memory that is exactly what happened. I would have loved to include it, but we simply could not find a good enough copy. I still have somewhere the fax from Dave Clark. I did not say that for the fun of it, but because that’s what happened. I know this because I WAS THERE. John Stuart was 400 miles away!!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t take any notice of the John Stuarts of this world. He was not there present when DC faxed me. He was not at all involved. He is purely guessing. I don’t know why, but JS seems STILL to have an enormous chip on his shoulder, and seems STILL to want to stir up problems when he can – instead of remaining quiet because he does not know the facts. Only us that worked on it know why that material could not feature. There is no dark secret, fd, I honestly assure you of that. JS is best avoided if all he can do is lead you down dead-end roads and offer you wrong information. There are a quite a few people out there like him – that sit at home hundreds of miles from where these things are put together, guessing WRONGLY about why things happen and don’t happen. I simply don’t understand the mentality of such individuals. It would be like me sitting here in Essex, hundreds of miles from Scotland, guessing at why JS does what he does, and the reasons for such and such. I don’t know, so I don’t guess, I just keep my mouth shut and talk about what I DO know. He should do the same. All he’s doing by telling you things like that, is causing unnecessary, unhelpful misinformation. There is a lot of myth around these days, about Queen, and what does and does not exist – a lot of crap is spoken, written, suggested, and it starts exactly like this – by people spouting off about things they have clearly no idea about. I’m sure you know this. I hope you get my point fd. It really irritates me when fans like you ask a simple and reasonable question, only to be told utter shit. YES, we know these tracks exist. Did I say they did not exist? NO I did not. I said they DO exist, but we could not get them AT THAT TIME. I also said we might use that material on a future FM project IF IF IF Dave Clark provides a decent recording, so CLEARLY I am not denying we know they exist – am I? TWATISH comments like his are not helpful fd. Suggest you go to a more knowledgeable source – someone who does not have an ask to grind. I hope this sheds light on this for you. I stand by my comments. What I said was 100% accurate, while what John St guessed at, was 100% inaccurate. DO PLEASE PRINT THIS ON YOUR SITE Best regards GB _________________________________________________ |
John S Stuart 13.10.2004 18:35 |
Thanks Greg: Nice to say some nice words about you to. But let's cut to the chase. "YES, we know these tracks exist... IF Dave Clark provides a decent recording, so CLEARLY I am not denying we know they exist..." That's exactly what I said. They are in the ownership of Dave Clark. I have no axe to grind, nor chip on my shoulder. Nor did I "Guess" incorrectly. Apart from personality clashes, nothing I reported was inaccurate. I agree that Greg was not my source, but I ask again, why would he seek out tapes, that QP already have access to? Greg says: "I don’t know why, but JS seems STILL to have an enormous chip on his shoulder, and seems STILL to want to stir up problems when he can" Pardon me - QP wish to demonise me because I told tales out of school? If you guys have any sense - you go figure. All I did was honestly answer a question to the best of my knowledge. How is this stirring up problems - and why does Greg go out of his way to create such a negaative impression? Sorry to be a such a pain in the ass here, but as far as I can see, I was correct, and although not too happy about it, Greg has just vindicated my story. Wherein is my crime here gentlemen? |
John S Stuart 13.10.2004 18:38 |
As a postscript, my source was Dave Clark himself, not QP - and Cliff has excellent copies also. Queen Productions are not the only company to hold any aces. |
Saint Jiub 13.10.2004 18:39 |
So apparently QP did not have a good copy of the concert, but at some point in time John stuart had a soundboard copy. I am inclined to believe John for these reasons: If the horrid sound-quality Wreckage concert could be included on the FM box sets, surely less than perfect quality of FM's last performance would have been OK for the FM box set. I believe the apparent feud between John and QP was started when his Wreckage Tapes were "lost" by QP? The Queen machine has a reputation for half truths, like ... Ghost of a Smile is a pirated release. |
Penis - Vagina 13.10.2004 18:39 |
Wow! Cheers to Greg for coming through with the real story! Thanks for posting that, fairydandy :) |
fairydandy 13.10.2004 18:49 |
So do we get the bloody tracks released or not? Haha..;-) Imagine it, Smash's 'New York at Last' at number one backed with the original demo, followed a week later by New York at Last (disc 2) with four bonus live tracks recorded at the Dominion. ..dreaming again...;-) |
Brian_Mays_Wig 13.10.2004 18:50 |
I downloaded the duet between Freddie and Cliff from WinMx, it was superb, lost it when I formatted my Pc, not been able to find it since!! ........and it was EXCELLENT sound quality. Live at the Dominion. |
Richard Orchard 14.10.2004 03:24 |
I have always found John S Stuart's post to be highly informative. I see no reason not to trust his judgement in this matter. Thanks for your insight John. |
Brian_Mays_Wig 14.10.2004 03:25 |
Im not questioning Johns knowledge Richard. I find him imformative too!!! |
iGSM 14.10.2004 05:00 |
Sorry to ask yet another question but what was/is your involvement with QP, John? And what was YOUR contribution with the FM boxsets? Just curious. I don't mean that in any prick question way. I'm just interested. Cheers. |
riku_queencdr 14.10.2004 05:53 |
I think most of us already know that without Mr. John S Stuart, there wouldn't be the Ibex stuff in the Freddie box. We must also thank him for the complete Ibex tape which leaked from QP after John had kindly borrowed it to be used in the box. If it had been my tape (which I had bought for some serious amount of money at an auction), I think I would have been more than furious for this kind of "accident".. |
Adam Baboolal 14.10.2004 10:13 |
"I am inclined to believe John for these reasons: If the horrid sound-quality Wreckage concert could be included on the FM box sets, surely less than perfect quality of FM's last performance would have been OK for the FM box set." Well, the included track(s) on the FM set sounded good. But the live Time tracks that I originally heard were much much worse. They couldn't be rescued because the recording had people shouting out and distorting the recording. And that's not good enough by anyone's standards. And yes, I have heard one or two of these soundboard recordings. They're really nice! Just a shame that it's entangled in legalities. If that is the case. Shame Greg had to be that blunt towards John. But then, I kinda see his where he's coming from on that. Peace, Adam. |
YourValentine 14.10.2004 10:30 |
"But then, I kinda see his where he's coming from on that." Perhaps you can help me see where he is coming from? Because I don't. All I see is a private email to a fan full of insults and innuendoes against John Stuart who really did not do anything else but tell us that the tracks in question were available while Greg said he could not get them. I really would like to see where he is coming from asking fairydandy to publish his email when all John Stuart ever did was helping out with tapes from his collection which were then stolen and never returned to him. |
Adam Baboolal 14.10.2004 10:44 |
Well, I don't have to agree with the insults part of that email. But what I understood was the part about half-truths and guesses. I understood that because John and I clashed on the recording equipment issue yonks ago. I remember not being happy about it because he "blagged" that he knew about that stuff, when it was clear he knew nothing about it. And as Greg mentioned, that can be where rumours can become truths to some fans. Please understand John, I'm not trying to bring this back up and snub your usual great responses. I do agree that Greg was too harsh and that email should've been kept to himself. :) Peace, Adam. |
YourValentine 14.10.2004 11:21 |
"But what I understood was the part about half-truths and guesses." Which half-truths and guesses? Please enlighten me. I see no half truths and no guesses in John's statement which could not be more precise. But if you have further knowledge - why don't you share it with us? |
John S Stuart 14.10.2004 11:45 |
Blo*dy hell Adam, you are like a dog with a bone. Why don't you let it go? You proclaim "Peace" but still you open up old wounds. Let's be clear here. I am NOT infallible. I am NOT a musician. I am NOT a studio technician. I am NOT involved with Queen archives. As such I have made mistakes in all three, and when these mistakes have been pointed out to me, I have publically appologised. What else do you want me to do - shed blood? This is NOT "blagging" but honest genuine mistakes. This is NOT in the same league as "The Left Testicle Of Freddie" who deliberately lied (but was consequently believed), or vindictive (like some of the hate mail which pours through my e-mail - or the threads of this 'zone). I will remind you I am a serious collector of more than 30 years experience, with some very serious (some would say priviledged) contacts. I own many very rare and unusual peices, and therein lies my "authority". In such cases I have freely shared my "expertise" - only to be shot down for doing so. Hardly fair - is it? Like an independant Queen-India Jones, it was ME who unearthed the "DELETED" BBC sessions (which strangely enough magically turned up for QP AFTER I donated mine). It was me who unearthed both "The Hectics" and "Ibex". It was me who unearthed very early Queen live recordings (including Barry Mitchell) The "De Lane Lea" master tapes (which I sold privately to the Dutch collector who eventually bootlegged them) and unreleased Trident acetates (which consequently will never be "donated" to QP). I have made very big mistakes dealing with Queen Productions. Period. I will remind you, that I do own "Is This The World We Created" piano version - and that the original tape was erased/overwritten. Whether this original master was two track, eight track or sixty four track, is academic, and to keep pulling me up because I got the number of tracks "wrong" really is a bit disingenuous. I still claim it was originally two tracks that were used - but I bow to your superior knowledge of studio technique, and concede that technically, I may be wrong. But as to the existence of the track, I am 100% balls-on-accurate. Have you ever made mistakes Adam? Do I keep pulling you up on those? Then please have the courtesy to acknowledge that I am doing my best here, to satisfy everyone who reads these threads, rather than jump upon a band-wagon that is trying to paint me as some sort of Queenzone Darth Vader. After all, as Freddie himself once said; "It's only a bloody record". |
Saint Jiub 14.10.2004 17:41 |
Adam, you've already been warned by others. Don't pick fights. LOL |
high-flying-adored 14.10.2004 17:57 |
My God. You people are all completely bonkers. Insanity ... why don't you all take a second before you blow the bloody world up and breathe very deeply? Ach! |
Fireplace 14.10.2004 18:48 |
What bugs me is why someone who appears to bear the official Queen Productions seal of approval would choose to write an e-mail as acrimonious as this one, and specifically ask for it to be published on the net. No matter who's wrong or right, if I were Queen I wouldn't want to be represented in this way. Certain jobs are simply too public to allow for "private" outings like this one, and I believe Greg has such a job. |
Adam Baboolal 14.10.2004 19:54 |
John S Stuart wrote: Blo*dy hell Adam, you are like a dog with a bone. Why don't you let it go? You proclaim "Peace" but still you open up old wounds.First of all, this is only the second time within a year that I've brought it up. Secondly, YV wanted me to explain myself, so I did. And thirdly, if you had read my posts on "that incident" you'd understand that I have let it go. You see, I let it go ages ago. You're the one who is talking about reopening wounds. I was simply making my previous comments a little clearer for YV. Let's be clear here. I am NOT infallible. I am NOT a musician. I am NOT a studio technician. I am NOT involved with Queen archives. As such I have made mistakes in all three, and when these mistakes have been pointed out to me, I have publically appologised. What else do you want me to do - shed blood?You see what you wrote? I wasn't attacking you, but you took it that way. This is NOT "blagging" but honest genuine mistakes.Okay, once and for all... the other mistakes you mentioned? I don't know of. But the recording comments were wrong. I will remind you I am a serious collector of more than 30 years experience, with some very serious (some would say priviledged) contacts. I own many very rare and unusual peices, and therein lies my "authority". In such cases I have freely shared my "expertise" - only to be shot down for doing so. Hardly fair - is it?When do I question you on things? Hardly ever. I believe in you. You're one of the only members of the board that I actually sit and read anymore. I have made very big mistakes dealing with Queen Productions. Period.If I was you, I'd only have ever sent a copy of the material you have. At least that way, you still have the original. Just take precautions. I will remind you, that I do own "Is This The World We Created" piano version - and that the original tape was erased/overwritten.Copy it and send it if they need it. Or would there be a reason not to make them a copy? Btw, why did you mention that big list of stuff? Have you ever made mistakes Adam? Do I keep pulling you up on those?Actually, yes I have had mistakes. And like you, I've put my hands up and agreed that I had been wrong. Remember the guitar thread where I thought a solo was tapping? I got it wrong and admitted it. And what's this pulling you up on stuff thing? Come on, man. After all, as Freddie himself once said; "It's only a bloody record".Exactly. So why so defensive? Peace, Adam. |
John S Stuart 14.10.2004 21:00 |
Adam - why am I so defensive? You keep on insulting me - but still you really want to know why I am so defensive? Perhaps I am over sensitive just now (and if so I apologise) but reading YOUR comments: "Greg... I... see his where he's coming from..." and, "...half-truths and guesses... he "blagged" that he knew about that stuff, when it was clear he knew nothing about it...", sound to me like you are saying "you deserved this" because you "blag" your way through the board". Do you know what "blag" actually means? It is UK slang and is highly offensive. Here is a dictionary definition: Robbery or theft, often a con or scam. Do you realise that you are saying that "I con my way, that I cheat steal and scam, for some sort of personal gain" - when the truth is I made an honest mistake you have ONLY dredged up TWICE? ("First of all, this is only the SECOND time within a year that I've brought it up"). Why keep bringing it up in the first place? It is not some competition - yet this seems to be the very reason "I deserve" what happens to me! (or at least - that's how I read your opinions). Ofcourse it is highly offensive and inflammatory language - and you wonder why I am insulted - or defensive? We both know I am not a thief or a liar - so why make out that I am - I don't think I deserve this sort of treatment because you have been able to pick me up on a single solitary technical error. Do you? How would you like to be inslted, to be called a cheat, a con, a liar, because you made a mistake about guitar tapping? Not very nice is it? Again, perhaps it is just my over sensitivity - but I do not accept that I deserve to be treated like public enemy number one simply because I answered a bloody question on a bloody notice board. To say "Peace" on one hand, yet insult me with highly charged negative language on the other is not MY idea of peace. |
John S Stuart 14.10.2004 21:51 |
Adam: I have no problem with you - nor do I wish to upset you in any way. If I appear over-reactive, then I am sorry. I expect that you may not realise the full impact of what you have been saying. I also accept that perhaps English is not your native language. But you can not use a culturally-loaded term like "blag" without it being used in a negative context. Even under "friendly" conditions there are certain socially inappropriate words that are unacceptable. To me, someone who makes a genuine mistake is a totally different person from a "blaggard". That is unless you ACTUALLY mean I am a cheat, a liar, a conman, and a swindler. I would like to think you do NOT believe the latter. But as things stand, you are actually saying (and I paraphrase) "John S. Stuart deserves everything he gets because he is a cheat and a liar and a conman". As I have said all along Adam, how can I be any of the above, if what I was saying was actually the truth? Again, I apologise if I appear to be over-reactive, but I do hurt, and I do bleed, and to be discredited as a conman, is (I feel) a bit harsh. |
Saint Jiub 14.10.2004 22:21 |
John - have you lectured in China by chance? LOL link |
John S Stuart 15.10.2004 06:48 |
Bullwinkle: No it was not me - honest! But that story does highlight my point. I made one honest mistake about a year ago (for which I appologised) and it seems that it will be upcast for the rest of my life. It's a strange zone here. I have delivered pages and pages of otherwise unavailable, solid, reliable material, and that one mistake is used to negate everything else! |
Brianmay1975 15.10.2004 07:46 |
Oh please stop having a go at John, Adam (and not only you)! Everybody may make mistakes, but John has also posted lots of great informative posts and we can't just ban him for the rest of his life... Greg was rather rude and he should've kept his mouth shut about John. If I were him, I'd be ashamed to ever talk again about John S. Stuart, after the shameful way his tapes were "lost". Greg has just spoiled the image of Queen Productions with his post. Some zoners have had a go at John even in Freddie's Left Testicle's case. Doesn't anybody find it amazing that a liar like the latter was believed and John's statements were not only doubted, but also harshly critcised?! |
Fenderek 15.10.2004 08:42 |
<font color="red">Brianmay1975 wrote: Greg has just spoiled the image of Queen Productions with his post.It's impossible- it's already been spoiled... Since GHIII or Rocks anyway... |
iGSM 15.10.2004 09:45 |
Still didn't really answer my question though...unless this is some sort of thing that I can't comprehend. |
Maz 15.10.2004 10:12 |
John S Stuart wrote: It's a strange zone here. I have delivered pages and pages of otherwise unavailable, solid, reliable material, and that one mistake is used to negate everything else!By whom? One person (Adam), perhaps? Add that to another poster who thinks you have a big ego (Jeffrey), and a public email from an archivist that has never posted here (Greg), and all of a sudden the Zone is against you? Are you overlooking the many other supportive, "I-believe-you-John-damn-everyone-else" posts in this thread and in your "QP pissed" thread? I have avoided much of this debate so far simply because you rarely acknowledge me, John, but please don't accuse QZ of some mass action because a few people took issue with a couple of your comments. Perhaps you are being overly defensive now. |
Fenderek 15.10.2004 10:19 |
With Zeni on that one- John, you do react to every single wannabe attacking you immidietely, but do not notice "all the little ones" who say "yes John, thank you for your extremely interesting posts, keep'em coming!"- it almost seems like those posts are being taken for granted and there's no need to relate to them... The board isn't against you, majority do appriciate your knowledge and the fact that you share some rare infos with us- except for a handful of green with envy wannabes... Why focus on minority...? |
John S Stuart 15.10.2004 10:27 |
Fenderek, Zeni: You are both correct and I have no excuse for my childish behaviour. May I say that I really appreciate you both, and all those who have supported me both here, and in the past. A very heart-felt thank-you. When you leave this board for the "real" world, to get on with one's life, it really fades into obscurity and is forgettable. But while you are here, alone, late at night, with a few drinks inside you, it amplifies the negative, and you start to believe that the world is against you. Other social baggage like work, friends, spouse, children, tiredness or whatever that moment's emergency may be, also kicks in - and suddenly you (perhaps I should say I) feel the most unpopular man in the world. I realise in the cold light of day this is not so, and that I should not let such ideas enter my head. I am who I am. I write what I write. I make no apologies. It is imposible to seperate the "man from the genius" (a quote about George Best). I think the point is we are all who we are - warts and all - and rather fight it, we should accept it. I know this is a bit of a ramble, but I really enjoy Queenzone. It is the BEST Queen site on the net - not because of me, but because of all you guys. I LEARN so much here. Ofcourse I get angry, but I also laugh, and criticise and share, like you ALL do. That is the beauty of this zone, not the negative aspects, but the positive, and again, I thank you guys for your support and for pointing that out to me. Cheers! |
Lester Burnham 15.10.2004 11:02 |
Cheers, John. You're appreciated on this side of the pond. Well, by me, at least. |
iGSM 15.10.2004 11:06 |
What side of the pond is it exactly? I'm always learning from everybody at Queenzone. Good show. |
The Real Wizard 15.10.2004 11:30 |
Even I will admit that JSS is one of the most honest and "human" posters here. So many posters just look like text on a page, but with many of JSS's posts, you connect with the actual person. |
Lester Burnham 15.10.2004 11:40 |
iGSM wrote: What side of the pond is it exactly? I'm always learning from everybody at Queenzone. Good show.East side, by the bench with the crazy old lady who feeds M&Ms to the cement duck statues. |
Penetration_Guru 15.10.2004 13:31 |
Group hug? |
Adam Baboolal 15.10.2004 15:12 |
Thank god it's over. I never meant to cause such a ruckus with you JSS. And for the record John, I've never been against you in any way. But your ramblings got to me and I had to react. Peace, Adam. P.S. Just because my name isn't John Doe, doesn't mean English isn't my native language. I'm Scottish... :) |
Brian_Mays_Wig 15.10.2004 15:20 |
*phew* |
Bob The Shrek 15.10.2004 19:25 |
Okay, drinks all round and PG's paying. Pass the hat round and Zeni might pole dance for you too. |
wstüssyb 15.10.2004 20:05 |
Pass the hat round and Zeni might pole dance for you too. Im there... |
Brimon 15.10.2004 20:36 |
Ive just checked out Zeni's profile pic, and I dont want to sound brutal here lads but I think she's seen better days. Anyways if shes game, heres my £1. |
Lester Burnham 15.10.2004 22:44 |
Aye, but after a few pints of Russian Imperial Stout, I bet you'd be singing a different tune. |
Maz 15.10.2004 23:46 |
Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow way down. Nothing but twenties in the hat, or I walk. |
Lester Burnham 16.10.2004 00:04 |
Nothing over a ten and that's my final offer. edit: actually, that's a nice hat. You've got your twenty. Now DANCE! |
Brimon 16.10.2004 15:34 |
This reminds me of the time I went to see a stripper in Gateshead. She must have been pushing on sixty, but I thought, I've paid my money I want to see a naked lady. She was'nt too bad, a bit saggy in places and her boobs did have a few liver spots on them, but on the whole, I would of. She was dancing to Rod Stewarts, Do You Think Im Sexy and things were starting to really hot up as she seductively discarded her clothes. Something was'nt quite right though, there was this thing stuck to her body, so I edged closer to have a better look. To my shock, horror and disgust, I realised what it was. She had a colostomy bag. |
Wilki Amieva 16.10.2004 18:37 |
Well, I guess we ALL have something to learn from these things... I really enjoy this QUEEN list and the local lists. But it seems that plain nonsense has taken much of them. So I am pleased that for once some fans disagree but finally understand each other. And that is because they care. That's not lack of sense, quite the contrary. |
Daniel Nester 20.10.2004 08:49 |
I just wanted to say I have truly enjoyed reading John's posts over the years on Queenzone--let alone his quotes in Record Collector, etc.--and I have always thought they were factually true. I also wanted to say if we were all taken to task over the years for delivery or style on these boards, we would never exchange any information at all. It would be a shame to see Jphn holding back because it offends others' sensibilities. And I also find it hard to believe that is Greg Brooks in those other threads. Daniel Nester link |
John S Stuart 23.10.2004 14:58 |
I am not a member of Queen On-line. Far too prohibitive and Stepford for my tastes - but then again each to his. (Better to stick with Queenzone!) That moderator - Kes: In reply to my answer answer: "The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive." Has come up with this wonderful bit of "Stepfordism"... "His (notice he can't even bring himself to mention my name) argument falls flat on it's face by the inclusion on the boxset of f*ck knows how many tracks that also aren't written by Freddie, and especially those ones that are already written by Dave Clark. He owns the rights to his songs, not Cliff Richard, end of chat. And Dave Clark WAS active in remixing those tracks of his which did appear on the boxset. This guy @ QZ has good Queen knowledge, but not so good legal knowledge, and even less tact and diplomacy. Could someone please inform him, or post over there (Jeffery) that the law works like this: Dave Clark - It's his song. His writes. He would be allowed the cut of these profits. Freddie Mercury: It's his voice. He would have to be paid a cut in accordance to his performing rights. Needless to say, Freddie (or his estate) would be also entitled to a one-off fee and royalties. QP: Freddie was leased through both QP and EMI (or Hollywood in the USA), thus credits like "Freddie Mercury appears coutesy of EMI. Here EMI are being payed for the permission to use their star. Cliff Richard: As above It's Cliff's voice. He would have to be paid a cut in accordance to his performing rights. Needless to say, Cliff (or his estate) would be also entitled to a one-off fee and royalties. Cliff Richard's Recording company. (As with EMI above). Now that's for starters. What happens next is a big fight between legal represntatives. Dave Clark's lawyers would want so much, Freddie's lawyers would want so much, Cliff's Lawyers would want so much - each fighting their own corner. Then the record companies argue about rights and who can play what where and they wrangle over things like territories and limitations and reprints and so on. In the end - these parties could not agree with each other. Each left the table feeling it was a bad deal for them, and that the other guy was getting a bigger slice of the pie. Therefore legally no release. That seems simple enough. I have never met, spoken or known this KES guy, but could someone please let him know how it is (just keepin' it real) and that over on THIS station we are not sheep and are allowed to discuss such topics without being scolded for breaching the party line! (Heavens above even GB could not argue the above - hence the spate of name-calling!). |
fairydandy 23.10.2004 15:25 |
John S Stuart wrote: I am not a member of Queen On-line. Far too prohibitive and Stepford for my tastes - but then again each to his. (Better to stick with Queenzone!)Your opinion that QOL is "prohibitive and stepford" is complete and utter bollocks. The opinions over there are as balanced and diverse as they are on here, there is little or no difference. The only thing that is prohibited, is the posting of links that lead to illegal downloads of copyrighted material (be fair, it is the official site)but that doesn't mean that we don't own them all, or don't talk about them. To say that it is "stepford" is a bit odd too. Just about every Queen product and venture has been criticised in the past, as it has on here...no difference at all. Heaven knows where you get this idea that we have a "party line", but it is simply totally inaccurate. I read somewhere that QZ has banned five people, but to my knowledge only one has ever been banned from QOL...so which site is it that is prohibitive exactly? |
wstüssyb 23.10.2004 16:22 |
I read somewhere that QZ has banned five people, but to my knowledge only one has ever been banned from QOL...so which site is it that is prohibitive exactly? Banned is different from having you speech censored, here you ca nspeak and what you truly feel, on QOL you risk the chance of it being mod, they simply give up since everything they post will be changed, here you dont have that, and only thing that takes effect is by banning, if we were able to chagne and mod what is being post, banned count would be lower. |
fairydandy 23.10.2004 16:47 |
wstüssyb wrote: I read somewhere that QZ has banned five people, but to my knowledge only one has ever been banned from QOL...so which site is it that is prohibitive exactly? Banned is different from having you speech censored, here you ca nspeak and what you truly feel, on QOL you risk the chance of it being mod, they simply give up since everything they post will be changed, here you dont have that, and only thing that takes effect is by banning, if we were able to chagne and mod what is being post, banned count would be lower.I'm sorry wstüssyb but you are wrong. I think this myth that QOL is heavily moderated is just that...a myth. I think the only posts that are moderated are those that contain personal details of other posters. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. |
Saint Jiub 23.10.2004 17:03 |
I've personally witnessed QOL moderation /censorship a while back on at least one occasion, but I forget the details. I recall Ming abusing his authority, and Kes appears to be another Ming Clone. Was not one of Fatty's poems recently censored? (concerning Jake?) I also recall that YV and Flashman have tales of censorship, although they may not rehash details. |
fairydandy 23.10.2004 17:18 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: I've personally witnessed QOL moderation /censorship a while back on at least one occasion, but I forget the details. I recall Ming abusing his authority, and Kes appears to be another Ming Clone. Was not one of Fatty's poems recently censored? (concerning Jake?) I also recall that YV and Flashman have tales of censorship, although they may not rehash details.Ming was never a moderator. In fact Ming was the person that was banned for alledgedly abusing personal details and posting them! Kes has some strong opinions for sure, and he is sometimes criticised for his behaviour and attitude, (aren't we all) but abusing his authority? Do you have evidence of this? I wasn't aware that any of Fatty's material had been censored, in fact Fatty is always made welcome at QOL. Perhaps the post that was supposedly deleted contained personal details? I actually think QOL is quite good on freedom of speech for an official board, and the mods are held accountable for what they moderate. I believe it is policy to put the deleted material into a separate place so that a further decision can be taken on it. Honestly I think you guys have this wrong....but I am prepared to change my opinion if someone can provide recent evidence of something that was deleted for no apparent reason. I say recent, because in the beginning there might have some evidence of over-moderating...but that is to be expected on a new board. |
fairydandy 23.10.2004 17:23 |
Here are the QOL guidelines for anyone that is interested. I would be very interested in hearing of deleted or moderated posts that were not outside of these guidelines. link |
John S Stuart 23.10.2004 17:45 |
FD: Two points: First: address the issue. It is wonderful how these issues are deflected by rubbish The issue is: "The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. Yet, no one from seems to be able to address this to discssus it seriously. It's either hushed or trivialised. Second: You are correct. I am NOT the one to say that Queen-on-line is over-rated - I "borrowed" that from the Queen-on-line clientelle... link SParker: "Theres a lot of very interesting topics going on over there... more so than here I think. The "powers that be" don't have any control over there!" (Nice to see that you have since deleted your OWN postings on that very thread!) I can keep going if you like, but my point is that does not address the issue discussed, and such trivialisation is a smokescreen. So there you have it - if Queen-on-line customers feel over-moderated - why take it out on me? |
fairydandy 23.10.2004 18:11 |
John S Stuart wrote: FD: Two points: First: address the issue. It is wonderful how these issues are deflected by rubbish The issue is: "The tracks do not belong to Queen or Queen productions. They belong to Dave Clark. Permission would have to drawn up between the lawyers of Dave Clark, Cliff Richard, The estate of Freddie Mercury and Queen Productions. The wranglings and cost involved made the tracks box-set prohibitive. Yet, no one seems to be able to address this or seriously. It's either hushed or trivialised. Second: You are correct. I am NOT the one to say that Queen-on-line is over-rated - I "borrowed" that from the Queen-on-line clientelle... link SParker: "Theres a lot of very interesting topics going on over there... more so than here I think. The "powers that be" don't have any control over there!" (Nice to see that you have since deleted your OWN postings on that very thread!) I can keep going if you like, but my point is that does not address the issue discussed, and such trivialisation is a smokescreen. So there you have it - if Queen-on-line customers feel over-moderated - why take it out on me?John, you brought it up, not me. I have no reason to defend QOL, and certainly not in this topic until YOU mentioned it. I can't comment on the other points you raised as I simply do not know who owns the tracks. I will say that I find the 'cost' issue of such tracks to be bizarre...who the hell wants them apart from us anyway! Surely this supergroup with their vast fortunes could get these if they so wanted? I have NOT deleted any of my posts, and I do NOT feel we are over moderated at QOL, I hope I don't have to keep pressing these points to you. You feel that, not me...oh and I thought you were that poster known as S Parker (strange that he appeared on QOL to slam Greg just after this topic started, also strange that he rarely posts there...and it's even stranger that his Queen knowledge is huge just like yours, don't you agree?) You have rightly got your support, from many at QZ, so don't go spoiling it by over doing it with the sympathy pleas, and false accusations that I am "taking it out on you" please. You seem intent on now starting to divide the two boards by raising this topic again tonight (with the additional QOL put downs)...that's fine, if it makes you feel better, but don't try reverse the blame for it, if it does happen on to me. |
John S Stuart 23.10.2004 18:20 |
Never heard of S Parker - and why would I use an alias? It is my "TRADEMARK" and the only thing that people know me by. I am proud of my name and never denied it. I took this over to another thread because it does not fit in here. Also - if you see other threads - I am all for "uniting" the boards and joing our resources together. Edit: Just been to QOL FD and I disagree - that SParker seems a very decent chap! He wrote "That John Stuart character definitely knows his onions... and I think Greg Brooks resents it, hence his childish posts there" link It definately is not me - but I like his thinking! Why not invite him over here for a chat? |
fairydandy 23.10.2004 18:32 |
John S Stuart wrote: Never heard of S Parker - and why would I use an alias? I am proud of my name and never denied it. It is the only thing that people know me by. I took this over to another thread because it does not fit in here. Also - if you see other threads - I am all for "uniting" the boards and joing our resources together.John, so I am wrong, it happens. I honestly thought that S Parker was you. I thought it a long time ago too, not just because of this incident. Anyway, can we bury this QOL part of the discussion (that you started) as I really don't want to get into it either. Can I ask what your signature is? Is it part of a lyric? |