John S Stuart 11.07.2006 09:09 |
Dear Greg, Thank you for taking the time to read my gibberish. I accept your charge that I am no fount of ‘privileged’ Queen Knowledge, but I have always believed that anything I can do to teach or to question perceived wisdom, in any sphere of life, is a good thing. For example, I remember being asked if I considered the film ‘Shindler’s List’ “entertainment”. I replied ‘yes’, because the film helped me to ‘entertain’ thoughts I may have otherwise never engaged, and even though the film can be criticised as being ‘inaccurate in some places’, the overall themes of the film, (the greater picture if you like) still stand true. The same is true in here, especially in relation to the Queen II album. This is a fan-site. It is moderated, produced and dedicated to all things Queen. So your example, ‘I don't come onto this site and start offering definitive data on the latest medical breakthru's (SIC), or upon Sony's latest DVD player, or Renault's plans for a secret milk-powered car…’ does not hold water, as in HERE is the very place we DO meet to speculate, to comment, and yes, sometimes even think out-side the Stepfordised Queen box. Perhaps you are correct in that I am NOT 100% certain. I confess to mistakes, (I thought only the Pope was infallible), and I also agree that my personal knowledge shades into insignificance with your own, but this is not some brainiac site discussing the nuances of nuclear physics, or considering the life and death threats of surgical transplant operations – although I guess there are in fact sites dedicated to such topics – so placing a Queen archive in such a league is in itself laughable, but, of THAT which I AM certain and can say with some degree of assurety - I am indeed correct. It is from this ‘original’ foundation of correctness, that I am able to extrapolate and complete the next step in the sequence, and I can assure you that this is based on much more than guesses and speculation. I concede that you may be privileged to ‘hidden’ information, but as by its very nature this is for me an ‘unknown variable’, I can not be faulted for not taking that into account. Let me take you through my thinking… |
John S Stuart 11.07.2006 09:09 |
1: Begin with the facts. 1974 Queen II Recorded Trident Studios August 1973. Released UK 8th March 1974, US 9th April 1974. Line-up: Freddie Mercury (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Taylor (drums), John Deacon (bass). Produced by Roy Thomas Baker & Queen: except Nevermore, produced by Robin Geoffrey Cable & Queen. March Of The Black Queen produced by Roy Thomas Baker, Robin Geoffrey Cable & Queen. Engineered by Mike Stone. Procession Album Version 1:17 - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 1998 eYe Stereo 1:12 Remix - Electronic Arts DDE05501 101S Golder’s Green Demo version - Unreleased: Wanted Father To Son Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 Exposed Hybrid 5:49 Ending - Exposed MC C-EXP 0491 Starlicks Video Edit - Starlicks Video White Queen Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 7" Single - 3" CDS EMI QUE CD5 (First EP) BBC 03.04.1974 (4:41) - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc Brian May 1968 home demo - Unreleased Someday, One day Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 Loser In The End Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 Ogre Battle Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 BBC 03.12.1973 (4:01) - Queen At The Beeb: BOJCD 001 BBC 03.12.1973 Long Lost Intro - Ultimate Collection: Royalty Music RMCD 001 BBC 03.12.1973 Restored Hybrid (5:12) - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc 1991 Nicholas Sansano 3:30 Remix - Queen II: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61232-2 Intro Edit: 35” - Total Guitar CD Magazine Fairy Feller's Master Stroke Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 Nevermore Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 BBC 03.04.1974 (1:27) - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc Electric Piano Version - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc March Of The Black Queen Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 BBC 03.04.1974 (6:25) - (Queen II: Album version) Starlicks Video Edit - Starlicks Video Funny How Love Is Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 Japan 3” CDs (2:53) - Japan 3" CDS EMI TODP 2251 UK 3” CD Single Version (3:15) - Digital Master Sampler Edit (2:51) - Original (1st Press) Cassette Tape Mix - Queen II: TC M-M EMI TC EMA 767 Seven Seas Of Rhye Album Version - Queen II: EMI CDP 7 46205 2 1991 Freddie Bastone 6:43 Remix - Queen II: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61232-2 Withdrawn Test Press - Unreleased: As It Began p75 Top Of The Pops BBC TV Original - Erased: US Hollywood Promotional Video - Unreleased: Home Video Top Of The Pops BBC TV Video - Unreleased: Home Video See What A Fool I've Been Album/ 7" Version 4:36 - Queen II: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61232-2 BBC 25.07.1973 (4:17) - Freddie's Boys At The Beeb: Bulsara Records See What A Fool I’ve Been - Smile: Royal Albert Hall 27th February 1969 Queen: Unreleased BBC Radio Session, 3rd April 1974 Recorded 03.04.1974. Broadcast 15.04.1974. Studio Langham 1, Bob Harris Sounds Of The Seventies. Produced by Pete Ritzema, Engineer unknown. Modern Times Rock ‘n Roll Nevermore White Queen March Of The Black Queen 2: Extrapolation of available information. The eponymous Queen Debut album was recorded June – Nov 1972. On both 6th November, and 20 December 1972, Queen performed live in London. On both 13th and 23rd July 1973, Queen performed live in Basingstoke and London. Queen II was Recorded at Trident Studios August 1973 (Sleeve info). Between 13th September – 2nd January 1973, Queen were performing live in their (mainly UK) tour. The early part of 1974 (1st March – 11th May) Queen were heavily involved in their UK/US tour. The Sheer Heart Attack LP was recorded between July – September 1974 at Trident, Wessex, Rockfield and Air Studios 3: Interpret this data. Queen II was recorded during a very short window of opportunity in August (Definitely post 23rd July - pre 13th September) 1973, at Trident studios for the Sheffield brothers as a contractual obligation. ('Death On Two Legs'). As a sti |
Daveboy35 11.07.2006 09:40 |
Well said john great reply i feel very strongly about this and all other things regarding the archives and you are again spot on in your views and like i said in the previous post Greg or qp need to either confirm or deny what you have said so the chinese whispers on certain things ceases to exist and also GB can gives us some new useful info to hear. For example and this is only an example there were 18 songs recorded for SHA album but there are 4 still unreleased or unfinished songs. That i would love to hear as it would make me wonder and anticipate the release even more. |
gnomo 11.07.2006 13:17 |
John, that was impeccable. |
John S Stuart 11.07.2006 13:22 |
As so few people have replied, I have been looking for an excuse to bump this thread, so here it is... |
Roy ® 11.07.2006 15:13 |
Great reply John. I hope that Greg will react soon.....or maybe we have to wait 6 weeks when Greg is on the board again ;) |
Hank H. 11.07.2006 16:05 |
I think we must realize that it's senseless. A reasonable conversation with the Archivist on this board will not happen. Don't waste your time. Ignore him like all the other spammers on here. |
Sebastian 11.07.2006 18:41 |
Nice reply, but I disagree with a couple of things: White Queen - Brian's words (as he said in the soapbox) were that he wrote it in college and the song found its way much later on the second album. He didn't say that they had little material or he *had to* revert to an old pre-Queen demo. It's quite the opposite: Roger said before they recorded Queen II that they'd got enough written material for two and a half albums. Seven Seas wasn't a case of filling gaps either, as Roger and Fred said (BBC Radio 2, xmas '77), they intended to start off the album with the complete version of the song, an eventually dropped idea, but the fact is that neither White Queen nor Seven Seas nor See What A Fool nor Ogre Battle (which is an early gem as well) were put there to make up for limited material. Having said that, I agree that within a month of recordings they wouldn't be able to do much more than the masterpieces they released. But all of that are just small details, now to the big one: The Pope infallible? Come on!!! |
John S Stuart 11.07.2006 18:59 |
Sebastian wrote: Nice reply, but I disagree with a couple of things: White Queen - Brian's words (as he said in the soapbox) were that he wrote it in college and the song found its way much later on the second album. He didn't say that they had little material or he *had to* revert to an old pre-Queen demo. It's quite the opposite: Roger said before they recorded Queen II that they'd got enough written material for two and a half albums.Correct - but both these statements are seperate, and were said at different times - so although you are correct - it does NOT automatically mean 'White Queen' was one of those Eponymous Queen refugees. (Although it would still make sense if it was). I interpret "the song found its way much later on the second album" to mean, it was indeed one of the final tracks to be considered, however, apart from Brian's ambiguious statement, I can not really prove it - but we both know a man who can - and we both know he will not solve this for us. Sebastian wrote: Seven Seas wasn't a case of filling gaps either, as Roger and Fred said (BBC Radio 2, xmas '77), they intended to start off the album with the complete version of the song, an eventually dropped idea, but the fact is that neither White Queen nor Seven Seas nor See What A Fool nor Ogre Battle (which is an early gem as well) were put there to make up for limited material.Again, you are correct, it was always the idea that the demo of 'Seven Seas...' would end one album, and the full version begin the other. As far as we can tell - it seems this idea was droped at a fairly late stage. You are also correct about Ogre Battle and See What A Fool, as these tracks were also considered strong enough to be part of the highly publicised BBC sessions (although recorded at a later date). In fact Seb, your mail is very reasonable, and I think for effect, I may have somewhat exaggerated my point, but the central thrust still remains, because of both time and financial restraints, much of the material on Queen II had to be re-cycled - rather than an album of fully newly written masterpieces. Sebastian wrote: Having said that, I agree that within a month of recordings they wouldn't be able to do much more than the masterpieces they released.That was one of my main points. That and, "I am already on record as saying; “It is true some demos do exist - but only as incomplete/variations of the tracks we already know about”. Apart from minor edits or fragments, how does this differ from your own interpretation - "There are NOT... demos... merely... remixes and remnants and fragments... By 'Remixes'...I mean just a mix different to the familiar"?" Sebastian wrote: But all of that are just small details, now to the big one: The Pope infallible? Come on!!!It was the Pope who told me that "Denmark won the World Cup two days ago"! Apart from minute details, (some of which we will never fully know) it is good to see that we agree with the bigger picture, and not sqabbling over minor trivialities. |
Ale_Pisa 11.07.2006 19:52 |
SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH.... I WANT TO WRITE ONLY 1 THING! Dear Greg, I collect Queen since 1988, I was 8 years old at that time, and I read and hear mnay stories about unreleased material by people claim to have it, like JSS and many others! JSS is the ONLY ONE who try to put a list of waht can exist and wjat not! Many information are incorrect, everybody know that, and JJS (I hope) know that! But he's the only one who try to do this thing and we apreciate him! Why you don't put a list here with this mistery? You work for Queen Production, you hear the tapes... so why not don't post the research you doing and share this with the people who BUY THE QUEEN MATERIAL? We trust in JSS because he write a list... Tell us something, but not many words, a little list of the demo/different mix of Queen recording for the first 2 albums, for example... it's a good start! :) Thank you very much and good works in the Queen Archive! Ale PS If you want an helping hand for hear and catalogate the tapes contact me! :) PPS Sorry for my terrible english but I hope you understand! |
Sebastian 11.07.2006 21:04 |
> much of the material on Queen II had to be re cycled - rather than an album of fully newly written masterpieces. Well ... it's all about semantics then, but I think we're on the same page. More than re-cycling material (a la Made In Heaven), I see that they saved up some of those efforts (Ogre Battle, White Queen and probably some more) for the time they could have more studio time and experience. Wise choice indeed. Remember both Brian and Freddie have been known for keeping some songs for a while before recording: Champions, Tie Your Mother Down, All Dead All Dead, even All God's People (albeit perhaps because of different reasons). Greg cleverly or unconsciously (or both) actually confirmed what your sound and deep research had already told us. > It was the Pope who told me that "Denmark won the World Cup two days ago"! I can't say I'm surprised: the nasty old fart speaks seven languages but none of them are Scandinavian. Too hard for his narrow-minded personality maybe? |
John S Stuart 11.07.2006 21:24 |
Sebastian wrote: > much of the material on Queen II had to be re cycled - rather than an album of fully newly written masterpieces. Well ... it's all about semantics then, but I think we're on the same page. More than re-cycling material (a la Made In Heaven), I see that they saved up some of those efforts (Ogre Battle, White Queen and probably some more) for the time they could have more studio time and experience.I agree with you - I think we are on the same page also, and I certainly did not mean to imply recycle in the 'Made In Heaven' sense - but you saw that, and you also saw that regardless of the limitations - 'Queen II' is still a masterpiece considering how quickly and (relatively) cheaply it was made. Sebastian wrote: > Greg cleverly or unconsciously (or both) actually confirmed what your sound and deep research had already told us.Thank you - I will take that as a compliment. As I said at the top of the page: I have always believed that anything I can do to teach or to question perceived wisdom, in any sphere of life, is a good thing. In the end it is not about me, it is not about Greg, it is not about who is right or wrong, however, if this page has done nothing, but sparked a debate among like-minded fans, then that for me is the real reward. |
Ian R 11.07.2006 22:42 |
John, First of all, let me say that was a great post that I hope Greg responds to sooner rather than later. I have a suggestion for you. To prove a point to the doubters (specifically Greg and others who may exist), perhaps you might consider uploading a 10 second extract of one of your rare recordings; possibly either “Hangman” or “Batteries Not Included”. The benefit of such an upload would be there for all to see - you prove a very important point to Queen Productions and Mr Brooks in one swift move, while retaining the monetary value of your collection at the same time. Finally, you could see it as a reward to all of the people here on Queenzone who have repeatedly defended you and fought your corner over the years. I’m sure a quick snippet wouldn’t hurt – most of us will probably pop our clogs (sorry Brian!) without hearing these tracks otherwise…! All the best, Ian. |
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 11.07.2006 23:11 |
this is all Geek talk. One is a kind man with lots of info to offer, and the other one is a son of a bitch.... |
Saint Jiub 12.07.2006 00:18 |
Same plot six weeks later (I hate reruns): 1. Greg poops on John 2. QZ (me too) takes bait (as indicated by P_G) 3. John offers olive branch. 4. Greg ignores olive branch. 5. Greg complains about treatment on QZ. 6. Greg disappears for 6 weeks. |
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 12.07.2006 01:41 |
what is olive branch? |
Jay Mantis 12.07.2006 05:11 |
Still no reply from Greg... sad. |
The Fairy King 12.07.2006 05:39 |
I'm not surprised. |
Togg 12.07.2006 06:29 |
Come on Greg, if you want respect (and you seem to crave it) you'd better stand by you statement! |
Asterik 12.07.2006 07:38 |
John has given an impeccable explanation, Greg. It's your job to respond, or can't you do it? |
Saint Jiub 12.07.2006 08:11 |
olive branch = peace offering |
The Left Buttock of Jim Hutton 12.07.2006 19:36 |
What John S Stuart is still failing to acknowledge is the missing 2 tracks from Queen II. Other Queen archivists have confirmed the existence of "Deep Ridge" and "Surrender To The City". What's stopping you, John? |
Pierre 12.07.2006 19:49 |
those 2 tracks are bogus... sci-fi hoax... |
Pierre 12.07.2006 19:51 |
Oh now i see your nickname hehe ...... |
The Left Buttock of Jim Hutton 12.07.2006 19:51 |
They are not bogus. I have heard them as part of the original 13-track album. They were dropped for artistic reasons - nothing else. Brian has said to me privately that he would like to re-release the album as it was meant to be. |
Pierre 12.07.2006 19:54 |
Man that joke is old now... |
The Left Buttock of Jim Hutton 12.07.2006 20:07 |
If you want to believe a wannabe insider like John or someone who knew the boys, that's your call. |
Jay Mantis 12.07.2006 20:44 |
If your trying to actually make yourself believeable then your should change your forum name to begin with. |
dont try suicide 12.07.2006 21:59 |
do all of you people have down syndrome or a slight case of retardation? greg brooks actually works for queen. he sits down with brian may, roger taylor and hey, maybe even john deacon and listens to everything queen ever recorded and put down on tape. do you really think he's lying to you all? how stupid can you guys be. you would rather listen to john s. stuart? a bloody queen fanatic/collector; someone who has no credibility or affiliation with queen? have you lost your minds? greg knows what he's talking about. i think you're all just fed up with waiting around for the stupid queen box sets and a little frustrated because you haven't been givin any good info on what is going to be included or what the future releases might be. greg can't give out all the info yet. it's still classified. don't be fooled by jss. that guy has no idea what he's talking about. hey, if john has some real proof/evidence/data, (i.e. recorded music) that he can share with all of us queen fans, then that might answer a few things. right? |
Sebastian 13.07.2006 00:12 |
> greg knows what he's talking about. Somebody who says that Fred sings the first verse of Who Wants To Live Forever, that the band performed Mull Of Kyntire before it existed and that John didn't play bass on the Barcelona album knows what he's talking about? If so, I'm ready to believe Denmark actually won the World Cup. > hey, if john has some real proof/evidence/data, (i.e. recorded music) that he can share with all of us queen fans, then that might answer a few things. right? He doesn't need to prove anything. Compare anything written by John with anything written by Greg. That speaks for itself. |
Togg 13.07.2006 03:45 |
How many times are you going to register as someone else Mr Brooks? fool |
Rick 13.07.2006 04:24 |
The Left Buttock of Jim Hutton wrote: What John S Stuart is still failing to acknowledge is the missing 2 tracks from Queen II. Other Queen archivists have confirmed the existence of "Deep Ridge" and "Surrender To The City". What's stopping you, John?Well, proove it. Post samples. |
Daveboy35 13.07.2006 04:45 |
Deep ridge and surrender to the city are both mercury compositions i've read somewhere can't remember where though. |
Pierre 13.07.2006 06:18 |
The left...... Ver.2 wrote> If you want to believe a wannabe insider like John or someone who knew the boys, that's your call. Why in the Hell should we belive in you ? You come ine here in your second joke nickname(at least) & telling us about 2 queen demos from queen II ! I only belive in what i see. PS.GBvsJSS there are no sides we all are the same side. |
Fireplace 13.07.2006 07:19 |
I wonder why GB keeps attacking JSS for letting out small bits of info without ever really following up. Both have suggested all kinds of things and never really proved it. Isn't Greg doing EXACTLY the same, albeit hiding behind QP directives? The mind boggles. |
John S Stuart 13.07.2006 08:47 |
Queen Archivist wrote: To Togg, who cut and pasted words from the internet... Queen Archivist wrote: To ... Oi Fingers!Two further replies to minor mails, but my request for dialogue is still refused. John S Stuart wrote: Therefore, I accept your very kind offer; link "If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all, including the things he 'thinks' exist, and he puts it on the table, I will confirm or not that they exist or not. NO confusion, no guessing, no misleading misinformation. John, what do you REALLY know. What do you REALLY have to offer as fact?" As I have been so free with my version of events re: Queen II recording sessions, and I have placed all my knowledge "...on the table", I hope you can oblige and let me know EXACTLY where I have gone wrong. I really look forward to reading your informative reply...Cest la vie. Could it also be that the above reply by 'Oi ! Fingers !', and 'The Left Buttock of Jim Hutton' (in my reply thread), are alias' (or stooges) by Greg to stir up further controversy? It’s just that I find that the manner and style of their ‘supposedly’ first Queenzone postings both strangely coincidental and familiar. If so, is this another new low for the board? |
John S Stuart 13.07.2006 08:52 |
|
John S Stuart 13.07.2006 08:58 |
Queen Archivist wrote: A few years ago I asked John to stop 'teasing' people and come out of the darkness with the facts of what he has, or does not have... instead on implying the existence of things, eluding to things, and hinting at things... If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all... I will confirm or not that they exist or not. Fireplace wrote: I wonder why GB keeps attacking JSS for letting out small bits of info without ever really following up. BOTH have suggested all kinds of things and never really proved it. Isn't Greg doing EXACTLY the same, albeit hiding behind QP directives...This may seem a strange request, and perhaps it is in the wrong place, but as I can not see it in myself (and we are always the last to see our own faults) is their any truth to Greg's accusations? I always thought I was honest, and open with the 'zone. I have given freely of what I know, and what I do not know, I have admitted. How then can I be viewed as some sort of - quoting Freddie - Pr*ck teaser? |
YourValentine 13.07.2006 09:28 |
I posted this in the other thread but maybe you did not see it posting at the same time:) "I always thought I was honest, and open with the 'zone. I have given freely of what I know, and what I do not know, I have admitted." That is completely true. You have contributed more valuable information than everybody else and the fans owe your for that. You have also always put up with ignorant and stupid comments with patience and grace and you have won the respect of the community for that, too. It's not what GB apparently is so angry about - if I understood him which is not easy for me.... He accuses you of hinting at possible recordings in your collection and then not coming forward with any details. He mentioned the Hangman studio version. He wants to know if you own it and says he already phoned you about the issue with no success. Personally, I think he will be even less successful to get such information if he attacks you on a public message board but everybody has his own methods of research. Of course you do not owe GB or anybody else an answer about your collection. For us as fans it would be great if QP had a chance to get recordings that are in the hands of private collectors (should there ever be an anthology) but I am sure if they approach the collectors in a professional and polite way they will succeed. Now, John - do you own a Hangman studio recording? :) Btw, if I had something so rare I would not tell anybody -I would not enjoy getting hundreds of emails with requests I could not answer. |
John S Stuart 13.07.2006 10:20 |
To read my reply to YV - you will have to move over to: link |
Lester Burnham 13.07.2006 10:41 |
Argh, John, any way to shorten that address? Scrolling hurts my hand :) Anyway, I've been absent from these boards recently because of several things, but I always love a good e-confrontation. I think it's no surprise that I side with John, because while he may not have access to the archives, he is a respected and knowledgable collector, and his demeanor and overall way of dealing with people is excellent. I don't think of his Ultimate Collection threads as bragging or gloating about what he has - I think of them as a way to reveal information about what exists and what doesn't exist. The thing is, that new information is revealed every day, so John's lists aren't meant to be definitive; they're just what he has collected over thirty odd years. What I find incredible is that people (this might've been on QOL) are willing to discredit John and all his research simply because he didn't have the God Save The Queen piano demo on his list. Chances are he didn't have that in his collection. Something that I've been wondering about is this: why is there such a stranglehold on information about what exists and what doesn't? Sure, Greg isn't obligated to provide us with that information, nor should we expect it of him (nor should we expect it all to be correct; he's certainly no Mark Lewisohn), but so much information over the years has been printed about other bands - hell, some bands, like The Beatles and Grateful Dead, WANT that information to be released! - that I find it absolutely mind-boggling that Queen don't want anything to be known. I wasn't aware this was some huge government-style conspiracy where the information that has been collected can only be revealed in fifty years or so. It's really a shame that Greg can't be more civil, and finds that he has to wind us up to get his rocks off. He and I have traded emails, and I was attempting to be conciliatory and neutral with him, but I got this air of arrogance in his responses, that he feels that Queenzone is beneath him. Apparently, he's only stumbled into the General Discussion, which is an abortion of a forum to begin with (but that's neither here nor there), and has completely bypassed the Serious Discussion except for posting his insane rants. And that's what they are: raving lunacy. He comes barging in like a bull in a china shop and then leaves quietly once the damage is done, and very little is achieved. I feel that Greg is jealous of John, because John is respected and liked, and that emasculates Greg. It's the only logical solution; otherwise, why wouldn't Greg try to be civil with everyone here? Apparently he doesn't realize that Queenzone is where the real passion is on the Internet, and that's his loss, quite frankly. And to think Brian gave me Greg as a contact for my book... I did try to ask him a few things but got the ever-elusive bail out "can't compromise the box sets", so I gave up trying to deal with him. |
Fireplace 13.07.2006 11:29 |
John S Stuart wrote:As I see it John, you're under no obligation to share any knowledge you don't want to. From what I have understood from your previous posts, you're being a bit vague about what unofficial material you actually possess, but then again I'm not disclosing what priceless paintings I have hanging on my wall (none actually).Queen Archivist wrote: A few years ago I asked John to stop 'teasing' people and come out of the darkness with the facts of what he has, or does not have... instead on implying the existence of things, eluding to things, and hinting at things... If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all... I will confirm or not that they exist or not.Fireplace wrote: I wonder why GB keeps attacking JSS for letting out small bits of info without ever really following up. BOTH have suggested all kinds of things and never really proved it. Isn't Greg doing EXACTLY the same, albeit hiding behind QP directives...This may seem a strange request, and perhaps it is in the wrong place, but as I can not see it in myself (and we are always the last to see our own faults) is their any truth to Greg's accusations? I always thought I was honest, and open with the 'zone. I have given freely of what I know, and what I do not know, I have admitted. How then can I be viewed as some sort of - quoting Freddie - Pr*ck teaser? I recognise there is a difference between knowledge and possession, it's just that I'm so damn curious :-) I was just getting annoyed by Greg's pointless attacks, especially since he hasn't volunteered any sensible information on this board either. You at least have provided us with all kinds of info, although sometimes a bit sketchy (the Hangman acetate being a good example). As far as I'm concerned, this "duel" can go two ways: either you and Greg retreat in your respective ditches with the occassional mudslinging, or you are both encouraged to divulge information that people like me have little chance of obtaining otherwise. Guess I don't have to tell you which one I'd prefer... take care, Michel. |
Benn 13.07.2006 11:34 |
Personally, I believe that the best thing to do for EVERYONE here is to just ignore the fact that Mr. Brooks exists. I haven't ever seen any "proof" that the person that posts as GB and who has a posting footer "Queen Archivist" is in fact Greg Brooks. I think we can all agree here that he has given nothing in terms of constructive opinion or quality information about the band at all, can't we? Therefore, his existance on this board is rendered pretty much useless and it's about time we all moved on. I'd be incredibly shocked if Greg Brooks was to EVER write some of the stuff that he's come out with on here whilst representing Queen and being their "fan interface". At the end of the day, he's been insulting and downright rude to people that are fans of a band that had spent 30 years telling people how deeply indebted they were to them for their support. Let's ignore his existance and move on. Lester, did you manage to catch any of The Who's UK shows recently? |
Togg 13.07.2006 11:46 |
It's amazing isn't it that here we are a few days after the original post from Greg, and at no point has he even attempted to respond to John. Instead he spends his time snipping at people and bitching as usual. Greg you really have lost the plot mate, you seem to inhabit a world filled with nothing but bile and bitterness. |
Lester Burnham 13.07.2006 11:49 |
Benn wrote: Personally, I believe that the best thing to do for EVERYONE here is to just ignore the fact that Mr. Brooks exists. I haven't ever seen any "proof" that the person that posts as GB and who has a posting footer "Queen Archivist" is in fact Greg Brooks. I think we can all agree here that he has given nothing in terms of constructive opinion or quality information about the band at all, can't we? Therefore, his existance on this board is rendered pretty much useless and it's about time we all moved on. I'd be incredibly shocked if Greg Brooks was to EVER write some of the stuff that he's come out with on here whilst representing Queen and being their "fan interface". At the end of the day, he's been insulting and downright rude to people that are fans of a band that had spent 30 years telling people how deeply indebted they were to them for their support. Let's ignore his existance and move on.Sadly, Benn, it is him. I've emailed him once when he sent some random poster an email bitching me out, and I wanted to set the record straight, and he confirmed that it was him. But you're right - time to move on. Benn wrote: Lester, did you manage to catch any of The Who's UK shows recently?No, and I'm bummed about it, because they've apparently been on fire. I'll catch them when they come to the States, the press announcement of which should be coming up in fifteen minutes or so. I think it's an understatement to say that I'm really looking forward to this tour! Also, the_hero, work is going well on the book. I'm about 85-90% complete, thanks for asking :) |
John S Stuart 13.07.2006 13:05 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Also, the hero, work is going well on the book. I'm about 85-90% complete, thanks for asking :)Remember to place my order in at the local bookshop! I am also sure that you will (deservedly) sell quite a few copies in here too. |
John S Stuart 18.07.2006 17:25 |
Queen Archivist wrote: ...and you come here spoiling for a fight, I DON'T ACTUALLY. I REALLY DON'T. I JUST STICK UP FOR MYSELF WHEN I READ UNFOUNDED COMMENTS.Isn't irony delicious? Has John S. Stuart moved into the Queen Archive room and nobody told me? link Sorry if there are children on Moanzone tonight, but I'm gonna spew again.. link GENUINE 'QUEEN LIVE' SERIOUS CHALLENGE FOR QZ-ers. link NEW BOOK ON QUEEN IN THE STUDIO link Greg, for better or worse you are the Official face of the Queen archive, and to write the above under the guise of your authorized title, is both an insult and a slap in the face to us all, and is a blatant misuse of the authority and trust placed in you by the band and fans alike. Any one else would (correctly) be hammered as a spammer. |
John S Stuart 18.07.2006 17:31 |
the_hero wrote: You forgot: What about MoanZone instead of Queenzone? linkI did indeed. In fact there has been so much spam in here of late, I think I am about to be all overcome by Monty Pythonism... |
John S Stuart 18.07.2006 17:43 |
Forgive me for repeating myself, but, I am posting this everywhere the Official Queen Archivist can read it, to remind him of the promise he made to me on 11th July 2006 .
Now there is no excuse to say that he did not see it, or that he overlooked my mail.
Therefore, if you a man of your word, and can you please reply to the request below?
John S Stuart wrote: Therefore, I accept your very kind offer;link Queen Archivist: "If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all, including the things he 'thinks' exist, and he puts it on the table, I will confirm or not that they exist or not. NO confusion, no guessing, no misleading misinformation. John, what do you REALLY know. What do you REALLY have to offer as fact?" As I have been so free with my version of events re: Queen II recording sessions, and I have placed all my knowledge "...on the table", I hope you can oblige and let me know EXACTLY where I have gone wrong. I really look forward to reading your informative reply, John S. Stuart |
Sebastian 18.07.2006 22:29 |
John, you're giving it much more importance than deserved. |