Queen Archivist 30.08.2007 14:33 |
Is there anyone left in the universe who does NOT know that in 2000, when I was working on the Freddie 'Solo' boxed set - of which I remain greatly proud, by the way - my old mucker John Sibelius Stuart sent me (us) an Ibex tape. This tape then went AWOL (that's Absent Without Leave) and later cropped up as a bootleg. It was all rather regrettable and a bit embarrassing for me, to be honest. It was the first (and last) time that ever happened but it has been mentioned by John a few thousand times since. John was not happy about this, reasonably so, and he said so. "I'm not happy about this" he said, quite a few times to everyone who would listen at Queen, and to their families, and their families' families. And to the people that supplied his coal and electricity, and the local cub scouts and their friends, in case they didn't know yet. And to the people next door to John who are not Queen fans and had no idea what he was going on about. "I AM NOT A HAPPY MAN" he said again, and then went to bed. And then after telling everyone at Queen that he was not very happy, and everyone at EMI, and then at Virgin, Chrysalis, A&M, Rocket Records, Polydor and Arista, he rung me again to remind me he was not happy, in case I had forgotten - which I had not. Then he rang more people and repeated "I'm not happy about my tape going missing." Then he rang me at home again one afternoon. My mum was here at the time and John demanded to speak with her. "Is that Mrs Brooks?" "Yes dear." "Your son lost my Ibex tape." "Did he?" "Aaaaye. He did." "Hang on there dear....... Greg, did you lose this nice man's Ibex tape?" "I did mum. I've said sorry." "Did it have that Beatles cover of Rain on it, son?" "Yes ma." "You utter git. I am ashamed of you." "Sorry mum." "Unhappy John from Scotland... you must tell the world of this tradegy and calimitous disaster, and you must tell them LOUD and for the next SEVEN years, dear." "I will Mrs Brooks." "Goodbye Jonathon from Scotland." "Goodbye Mrs Brooks. Did I tell you that your son lost my Ibex tape......." My mum has never forgiven me for this, much like John, and I think she loves me a good deal less than she did before because of this, much like John, and I think it has caused such deep rooted scars that she will never ever be able to move on from it and will go on and on and on and on and on, until the Sun falls from the sky. And then after that episode with my mum John told QZ he was not happy. Then he wrote to me again saying words to the effect "I'm still not very happy." 2 whole hours passed by and then... John wrote to several other people who did not yet know that he was not very happy, to tell them he was not very happy. "I am John S. Stuart," he would impart, adding "and I am not very happy." "Greg from Queen lost my Ibex tape. And life will never be the same again. Don't these people know this is my LIFE they are screwing with?" He would say, barely clinging to sanity and fighting back the tears. "This is my TAPE, my cassette, my..... Ibex live in liverpool recording." John told every single human being that had ever lived, and a few that were dead as well, every breathing life form he could reach in any way imaginable, that the loss of his tape had upset him, and that was fair enough. I too would have got the hump had it been my most prized and cherished possession in the world. But as I explained 106 times at the time, in 2000, and then 24 times in 2001, 33 times in 2002, 16 times in 2003, 47 more times in 2004, 28 times in 2005, 8 times last year, and 12 times so far this year, I am truly truly honestly and genuinely sorry that I lost the tape. What else can I say? Should I offer up |
Queen Archivist 30.08.2007 14:41 |
By the way, the tape I lost was a COPY he made me, not John's master. |
Drowse1 30.08.2007 15:04 |
So basically what you're trying to say is that you lost a tape of an Ibex gig and this bloke Jonathan isn't happy cos it was his? Did I get that right? Mmmm. In truth I think you should apologise to him. |
YourValentine 30.08.2007 15:16 |
In fact John never said that YOU "lost" it, Greg. He always was very cautious about not blaming someone in particular. Your posts say so much more about you than about John Stuart... |
pittrek 30.08.2007 15:25 |
Come on Greg, this personal war between you and John is so incredibly boring . Can't you just shake hands and close the file ? |
john bodega 30.08.2007 15:37 |
Wait; So John isn't happy? Seriously, hatchets need burying. If y'all got hit by a bus tomorrow, would you want to go to Heaven knowing you spent so much time getting each others dukes up?? |
Micrówave 30.08.2007 15:42 |
Greg, I think any proceeds made of the sale of the Freddie Box should be immediately turned over to John. The only reason I bought the box was for the lost ibex track. The rest of the stuff was just window dressing to me. Somebody have a goat carrier they can loan? |
Queen Archivist 30.08.2007 16:16 |
YourValentine... In fact John never said that YOU "lost" it, Greg. He always was very cautious about not blaming someone in particular. Your posts say so much more about you than about John Stuart... ***** OH PLEASE! You surely do not believe for a second that anyone is remotely confused or in any doubt whatsoever that it is me and only me John is referring to in his numerous references to that incident? It's obvious to a blind man YV. Come off it. Get real. EVERYONE knows it's me JSS refers to, and you know it too. I have no problem with it, because I recognise that it's blatantly apparent to everyone including you, so I cannot see why on earth you would offer that comment. It seems totally redundant. I have addressed this 2 or 3 times here on QZ, as YOU know very well YV, on 2 or 3 of the many ocassions that John mentioned it again. So is there anyone in your opinion that would be thinking... "Ooooh, I wonder who it could be at QPL that John is referring to?" As if Greg Brooks would never occur to them. Like I say YV, come off it and get real - even though it is a minor point. |
Sebastian 30.08.2007 16:27 |
It seems like Greg fell in love... |
DavidRFuller 30.08.2007 16:31 |
So he is upset that Queen fans (who have never had the opportunity to do the awesome things he has)get to listen to and enjoy a rare Ibex performance. Hmmmm............ |
thunderbolt 31742 30.08.2007 16:47 |
I was unaware of this. A million curses upon your loins Greg. No, seriously. This dramatically alters my view of the world. Whatever happened to "let bygones be bygones"? If this was the only known copy that had gone missing, ok, cause for concern, but it was a copy of the master, and this happened seven years ago. Can't we all just get along? |
Queen Archivist 30.08.2007 16:48 |
A question for YV...... If it crossed your mind that John Stuart did actually tend to mention rather a lot the seven year old episode of the lost Ibex tape, and it was your personal opinion that mentioning it again in Justin Leiter's 'Open Letter' to Greg Brooks, though it is not relevant at all to his Mott The Hoople program, was rather out of place and repiticious, WOULD YOU ACTUALLY SAY SO HERE ON QZ? Would you ever actually admit something like... to be honest John, you do keep on referring back to that thing, and perhaps it's time to move on??? Would you heck YV. Not in this life time. It's a fair point YV, but conspicuously you will jump to defend John and his copious references to that episode, again, but never see (or at least comment on) the other side... that's because the other side is Greg Brooks' side, and that's because I do have a good and valid point which I know you can see. BUT, because I make it in a mocking piss-taking way that throws scorn on ENDLESS harping back to an ancient episode, you simply refuse to be impartial once again. Nothing changes with you. Why don't you say ALL that you think. Express your ENTIRE feelings on the matter. It's fine that you have a go at me and point out the errors of my ways as you perceive it, but be fair and balanced, and have the courage too to tell John that you ALSO have noticed he does mention this thing at least every month or every other month. You know it to be true, so say it. Try being fair. I've said this to you before when you expressed only one half of your views in order not to upset one of your friends. I believe that like me and others on QZ you should have the courage of your convictions. Now, right now, you will have a further pop at me rather than say, "True, Greg, I recognise that John does go on and on about that lost tape. Fair cop. It is tedious, I agree. JOhn, please stop going on about it because it's really old news now. Thank you mate." That would be such a refreshing change; you being completely fair and expressing here on QZ (for JSS to see too) the WHOLE truth, not just edited parts of it. Are you big enough to admit the truth in what I say YV? Or even to see it? |
John S Stuart 30.08.2007 16:57 |
DavidRFuller wrote: So he is upset that Queen fans (who have never had the opportunity to do the awesome things he has)get to listen to and enjoy a rare Ibex performance. Hmmmm............Actually David, nothing could be further from the truth, and I am a little surprised that you could be so easily duped. I know - that you know - I just happened to share EXCLUSIVE material from my personal collection (which does NOT exist in the Queen vaults) over the weekend (especially as you provided the 'YouTube' video based on the download). So what gives either you or Greg the right to be so judgemental - especially in the face of my continued generosity? Three guesses as to who just lost himself a sweet little contact? |
John S Stuart 30.08.2007 17:00 |
Queen Archivist wrote: By the way, the tape I lost was a COPY he made me, not John's master.Actually, it was the MASTER casette which was lost - I kept my personal copy on mini-disc. If I am not mistaken, what you actually needed was the master so that any further reproduction was the 'best possible available...', but I guess you have forgotten that too. Anyway, as I have repeatedly said also, this has NOTHING to do with a cassette tape, but more to do with a philosophy or attitude. However I guess points of order or principle are lost on the materialistic. |
Katicas..(L) 30.08.2007 17:29 |
I really need to start reading properly or wear glasses i thought it was john deacon you was talking about..lol That would be funny if you had a arguement with him..:D:D |
YourValentine 30.08.2007 17:49 |
Greg - I do express my conviction. Only because you don't agree you think something is wrong with my views. You want my entire feelings about the issue? here you go (apologies to everyone else) I think it's an utter shame that a multi million organisation like QP borrowed a precious tape, allowed it to be stolen or get lost or whatever and did not have the courtesy to refund the owner, accordingly. If QP had done the right thing and if they had refunded the tape owner - nobody would even remember the affair. I have no knowledge about your role in the matter and I do not care. If you feel offended you may have your own good reasons. Truth is that John never held you personally responsible for the loss of the tape on this board. Certainly it was not your job to refund John, it was the job of QP who have more than enough money to repay a fan and collector for a lost/stolen item he kindly lent them. If I were in John's shoes I would not shut up, either. Why should he? What in all the world would it have cost QP to pay him for his loss? Why should he be the one who lets the matter die when it's only in their interest to hush it up? If I were in his shoes I would keep complaining till the end of time, believe me. I am all for fairness and a peaceful solution but I do not see the fairness on the QP side and it would not cost them 1% of their annual income to settle the matter once and for all in a decent way. John Stuart is not my friend, I am not biased because he sends me birthday greetings - he does not. I have never seen a photo, I do not know his age or any other personal data. He is a fan and respected member of this board, nothing more - and nothing less. If you don't like my opinion that's really not my problem :) |
Sebastian 30.08.2007 17:52 |
Greg - I'll express my ENTIRE feelings: you're idiot. But I did laugh with the "mum" story. John - Are you really Sibelius? Those asking John to let go - It's easy to say that when it's somebody else who's been offended. I don't think John is obsessively complaining or whining (I can't say the same about Greg), but even if he was, he's got the right to do it. I think there are many people "left in the universe" not knowing about QP losing John's tape (and not even trying to compensate him for that); but there are very few people "left in the universe" not realising QP are a bunch of imbeciles, including (and starting off by) Mr Brooks himself. |
Negative Creep 30.08.2007 18:25 |
If the tape was genuinely lost, how did it end up being bootlegged? Also, if it was indeed the master that was lost - couldn't QP atleast have given John a digital copy of the professional transfer of the tape? And as a side note John - it would make more sense to back up such recordings to DAT or as uncompressed audio files as MD is unreliable and below the quality of CD. |
Victorvil 30.08.2007 18:25 |
Queen Archivist wrote: "Greg from Queen lost my Ibex tape.Am I the only one that haven't seen Greg in a stage WITH Queen between 1971-1986. Freddie, John, Brian, Roger.... but.. GREG??? Wasn't SPIKE??? Vic |
John S Stuart 30.08.2007 19:08 |
Negative Creep wrote: If the tape was genuinely lost, how did it end up being bootlegged? Also, if it was indeed the master that was lost - couldn't QP at least have given John a digital copy of the professional transfer of the tape? And as a side note John - it would make more sense to back up such recordings to DAT or as uncompressed audio files as MD is unreliable and below the quality of CD.I agree with you, but as hindsight is a perfect science, I (mistakenly) believed that the original cassette would be returned. Therefore, I also thought that a safety back-up, rather than an uncompressed audio file would suffice. So hopefully I have learned at least one lesson! Nevertheless, as I keep preaching, I have long accepted the loss of this cassette - and this issue has nothing more to do with a physical artefact. Rather, my point is more about the abstract principles of attitude, morality and responsibility, but I guess there are those who miss these wider issues because they cannot see beyond their physical confines. |
onevsion 30.08.2007 19:10 |
YourValentine wrote: Greg - I do express my conviction. Only because you don't agree you think something is wrong with my views. You want my entire feelings about the issue? here you go (apologies to everyone else) I think it's an utter shame that a multi million organisation like QP borrowed a precious tape, allowed it to be stolen or get lost or whatever and did not have the courtesy to refund the owner, accordingly. If QP had done the right thing and if they had refunded the tape owner - nobody would even remember the affair. I have no knowledge about your role in the matter and I do not care. If you feel offended you may have your own good reasons. Truth is that John never held you personally responsible for the loss of the tape on this board. Certainly it was not your job to refund John, it was the job of QP who have more than enough money to repay a fan and collector for a lost/stolen item he kindly lent them. If I were in John's shoes I would not shut up, either. Why should he? What in all the world would it have cost QP to pay him for his loss? Why should he be the one who lets the matter die when it's only in their interest to hush it up? If I were in his shoes I would keep complaining till the end of time, believe me. I am all for fairness and a peaceful solution but I do not see the fairness on the QP side and it would not cost them 1% of their annual income to settle the matter once and for all in a decent way. John Stuart is not my friend, I am not biased because he sends me birthday greetings - he does not. I have never seen a photo, I do not know his age or any other personal data. He is a fan and respected member of this board, nothing more - and nothing less. If you don't like my opinion that's really not my problem :)Very well said... Get your facts right mr. Brooks... |
thunderbolt 31742 30.08.2007 19:16 |
[..Cake..Or..Death..]..[[TONKS]] wrote: I really need to start reading properly or wear glasses i thought it was john deacon you was talking about..lol That would be funny if you had a arguement with him..:D:DI initially thought he was referring to Jeff Scott Soto, which prompted the reaction of "I didn't know Jeff Scott Soto was active here..." ;) |
Darren1977 30.08.2007 20:38 |
Greg, Is there any way that Dr. Brian May can come on this site and give us an indication when anything worthwhile from the archives will be released. I AM NOT critcising you or your work so far but i think i speak for many hundreds if not thousands of fans who are crying out for something different other than Hits Albums etc. I have emailed his site a total of three times in the past year and a half, but no good, if there was a new star in the sky he would probably be more interested, and if that is the case and music takes a back seat for him, well thats his own business! |
Sweetie 30.08.2007 20:39 |
...and did I tell you he lost my Ibex tape? |
Donna13 30.08.2007 20:44 |
JSS: "Anyway, as I have repeatedly said also, this has NOTHING to do with a cassette tape, but more to do with a philosophy or attitude. However I guess points of order or principle are lost on the materialistic." Do you have a "philosophy or attitude" regarding forgiveness, JSS? |
John S Stuart 30.08.2007 21:43 |
Donna13 wrote: JSS: "Anyway, as I have repeatedly said also, this has NOTHING to do with a cassette tape, but more to do with a philosophy or attitude. However I guess points of order or principle are lost on the materialistic." Do you have a "philosophy or attitude" regarding forgiveness, JSS?As a matter of fact Donna13 - yes I do - but that does NOT mean that I must suffer fools gladly either! |
Donna13 30.08.2007 22:17 |
John S Stuart wrote:So, are you saying you are willing to forgive Greg?Donna13 wrote: JSS: "Anyway, as I have repeatedly said also, this has NOTHING to do with a cassette tape, but more to do with a philosophy or attitude. However I guess points of order or principle are lost on the materialistic." Do you have a "philosophy or attitude" regarding forgiveness, JSS?As a matter of fact Donna13 - yes I do - but that does NOT mean that I must suffer fools gladly either! |
Mr Faron Hyte 30.08.2007 23:45 |
Donna13 wrote: So, are you saying you are willing to forgive Greg?Regardless of whether or not he forgives, he is not obligated to forget. Especially given the inadequacy and insincerity of the apology. Why don't you loan me your car and see how forgiving you are when I say "ooops ... lost it ... sorry ... dunno what happened". Its easy to be big about it when you aren't out anything. Keep complaining, John, especially since its the only satisfaction you're ever likely to get out of the experience. The least Mr. Brooks, et al, can do is to keep his mouth shut and take it like a man instead of the whiny, thin-skinned, petulant child he proves himself to be over and over again. |
Togg 31.08.2007 04:33 |
Regardless of who lost what etc the fact remains that this has been covered endlessly here, and I think Greg has a point that surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again! I feel sorry for John, and maybe things could have been handled better but you know what guys, lifes too short move on |
YourValentine 31.08.2007 05:25 |
Togg, you overlook the fact that it has been Greg (again) who brought this topic up in various threads at the same time. It's easy to say "move on", "forgive" but how would you feel - if someone lost a precious item you lent him and did not only not pay up but instead allowed an employee (free lance or not) to come to a fan board and insult you in the worst possible way over again, called you names, caused you distress, while you stayed calm and never returned the insults? Because this is what happens here, just search for "GB" or "Queen Archivist" and read up the endless rants and redundant topics by the official archivist of QP posted here on this board just to attack, offend and insult John Stuart who was the victim and not the offender. I wonder how you would feel in his shoes. |
The Fairy King 31.08.2007 05:37 |
YourValentine wrote: Togg, you overlook the fact that it has been Greg (again) who brought this topic up in various threads at the same time. It's easy to say "move on", "forgive" but how would you feel - if someone lost a precious item you lent him and did not only not pay up but instead allowed an employee (free lance or not) to come to a fan board and insult you in the worst possible way over again, called you names, caused you distress, while you stayed calm and never returned the insults? Because this is what happens here, just search for "GB" or "Queen Archivist" and read up the endless rants and redundant topics by the official archivist of QP posted here on this board just to attack, offend and insult John Stuart who was the victim and not the offender. I wonder how you would feel in his shoes.Digusted and betrayed. |
John S Stuart 31.08.2007 05:43 |
Togg wrote: Regardless of who lost what etc the fact remains that this has been covered endlessly here, and I think Greg has a point that surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again! I feel sorry for John, and maybe things could have been handled better but you know what guys, lifes too short move onlink From where I sit, I was NOT the instigator who began or invited this topic, so if Greg feels that 'this has been covered endlessly here...’, and that 'surely now after all this time we don't need to go through it again...', then without doubt it was HIS choice (and HIS choice ALONE) to do so. After deciding to run with HIS choice, surely he cannot expect to commence any thread without some sort of discussion or response? I am on record many times (both in here and QOL) that I harbour Greg no ill-will or bad feeling, and while it is true that I have moved beyond the literal loss of this cassette, I will never get over the experience – simple because every experience leaves a lasting impression (be it good or bad). This herein lies the really sad news, because as the Chinese say: ‘Cheat me once – shame on you. Cheat me twice – shame on me’, so personally, I see no reason why anyone would ever trust QPL with a ticket-stub, let alone any rarities they may wish to borrow in the future, and that unfortunately is a situation NOT of MY making... |
Togg 31.08.2007 06:11 |
I get the point (frankly on both sides) it's just that we are adding nothing new here just rehashing old topics, neither side are going to win or change anything, what's done is done and unless someone changes their stance nothing is going to change. I am well aware of how Greg has behaved in the past here, I have been the target on several occassions and fired back a few, however I do think that it is now time to say water under the bridge, it's not going to get the tape back and un-pirated as it were, so that's why I say move on. I also was very interested that after many promises he finally did come good with the list of live recordings so maybe he has at least tried to become more of a useful part of the QZ community, which I for one welcome. John has always been a great contributer here, so long may it remain. Personally I would just like to see the back of the fighting about old issues that we can't change |
Adam Baboolal 31.08.2007 07:16 |
Yeah, there's a lot of back n forth with no real outcome. This tape thing should just disappear. I share sympathy for John. But I see the point about all the constant bickering over something as silly as this being too much. My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years. I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this. Adam. |
YourValentine 31.08.2007 09:39 |
"But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years." Probably you would hold a grudge if he would show up on your favourite website periodically and call you a whiner who cannot let go and how fed up he is with you and you know nothing about music anyway... |
Donna13 31.08.2007 10:34 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Yeah, there's a lot of back n forth with no real outcome. This tape thing should just disappear. I share sympathy for John. But I see the point about all the constant bickering over something as silly as this being too much. My word of advice is that holding onto this will only leave a negative impact. I know this won't mean anything, but I'll mention it anyway. My brother saw fit to delete my music from our PC back in 1998. That's my original work, btw. I have no copies or tapes. cd's, etc. So, it's completely gone. But, I hold no grudge and I haven't thought about it for many years. I know what you'll say, "he's your brother", etc. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to help and say that it's far healthier to forgive something like this. Adam.I agree. Yes, I think forgiveness is important, not just for one's own benefit (in the case where someone has purposely wronged you), but especially in the cases involving an accident or a foolish mistake. And as for Mr. Faronhyte's comment to me ("Its easy to be big about it when you aren't out anything"), it is not surprising to me that someone would say such a thing to me on this board, where some people like to spout off without knowing any facts (including me sometimes - ha). But, in fact, I have been "out" much bigger than this little tape, or a car. |
Sebastian 31.08.2007 11:06 |
Regarding Adam's comment, I partially disagree, because the case is not the same IMO: how old was your brother back then? Was your brother a multi-millionaire company with the possibility of compensating you - economically and ethically - for your loss without having to invest over 1% of their income? I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story. |
Donna13 31.08.2007 11:39 |
Sebastian wrote: Regarding Adam's comment, I partially disagree, because the case is not the same IMO: how old was your brother back then? Was your brother a multi-millionaire company with the possibility of compensating you - economically and ethically - for your loss without having to invest over 1% of their income? I think Mr Faron Hyte's analogy is more appropriate. I'd add this: if I lent my car to a friend and he/she wrecked it, I'd be obviously pissed off. But if I lent my car to Renault SA and they lost it, never compensated me (which would be a tiny effort for them, compared to my friend who'd have to work his/her arse off for quite a long time), and had their employee going on a series of stupid tantrums offending me, that's a completely different story.Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me. |
YourValentine 31.08.2007 12:18 |
"Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts.... |
Micrówave 31.08.2007 12:23 |
I don't think it's a matter of taking sides. I think we all like the fact that both John and Greg post on here, regardless of if we like them or not. But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point. This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't. Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated? |
Donna13 31.08.2007 12:58 |
YourValentine wrote: "Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts...."If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner? |
Donna13 31.08.2007 13:12 |
Micrówave wrote: I don't think it's a matter of taking sides. I think we all like the fact that both John and Greg post on here, regardless of if we like them or not. But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point. This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't. Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?Yes. These are very good questions. |
John S Stuart 31.08.2007 13:18 |
Donna13 wrote:Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent?YourValentine wrote: "Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts...."If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner? More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also? Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in. However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band. |
John S Stuart 31.08.2007 13:32 |
Micrówave wrote: Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?I was born into and live in a capitalist system, and although I accept that I may be crucified for my own sins - I do not think that I can be crucified for all of our societies failings. In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later. It is this Capitalist principle on which the Western world thrives. However, I am very sad that no one seems to grasp the bigger picture here. The issue at stake is NOT about cassette tapes or lost property, but, much broader principles. Why is it that I am the only one who seems to see this - especially since I am NOT the source of all this muck-racking? What must I do to gain a bit of dignity? |
brENsKi 31.08.2007 13:35 |
Micrówave wrote: I But I'm not too sure of what the end result will be. I can totally see John's point, I can totally see Greg's point. This is why I don't worry about bootlegs or unreleased tracks and don't understand why people value them so much. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I knew how it all worked, but from what I can see, John is disappointed that he loaned something to QP and didn't get it back. It was a recording that was made, probably without the band's proper consent, right? I mean, John you weren't holding the boom mic or running the sound board that night, right? Then years later, the company that manages the person on your recording asks for it or you just give it to them. Why would they give it back? I mean, yeah, maybe the actual plastic shell and tape is yours, but what is on that tape certainly isn't.i think you have missed the point. the tape in question cost John money to obtain. he lent it to QPL in good faith, THEY agreed to return it after copying it. they insisted on the original to make a best quality copy. they lost it. without John's goodwill the FM Boxset would've had a gaping hole. An agreement was made - end of argument. - and Greg is behaving like a child. - most of his postings in QZ have been (at best) purile and (at worst) inflammatory. The ONLY piece of genuine information he gave us was something MOST of us could've worked out (by talking amongst ourselves) - the list of live film in the archives - and he even "gave" us that in return for loads of hard work by QZers. Greg - if you really want to retain ANY dignity round here - then give John back his dignity. Stop baiting him and ask your employers to write an apology to John. |
Darren1977 31.08.2007 13:40 |
Eactly Brenski, and hopefully all you collectors will take notice of this topic and when the call comes for a "Live Anthology Release" and QP want to 'borrow' your tapes etc., Tell 'em to Fuck Off, or suggest to them that you go along with them to the copying/mastering place and stand over them while they do it! |
Donna13 31.08.2007 14:38 |
John S Stuart wrote:My understanding of things:Donna13 wrote:Donna13 Can I remind you these posts are NOT of my making. What should I do while these tirades are still made against me? Keep silent? More to the point, what should my fellow members of QZ do when they witness such behaviour? Keep silent also? Tyrany and freedom of thought are poles apart, and whether you agree or disagree with what is taking place - ultimately you have a choice - like a bad television station you can refuse to tune in. However, for some of us, this is more about 'bear-bating' and I do not think that such sport should be tolerated anywhere - and especially not in a forum which exist primarily to discuss the music of a rock band.YourValentine wrote: "Complicating this would be Greg's liability as a contractor (not on staff at QP, right?). Also, is Greg allowed to act as an agent, negotiating compensation on behalf of QP? Is Greg being blamed for something that isn't his fault and that he has no power (authority) to remedy? Or is it all his fault and he has no backing from QP (money) to remedy? Or is it the fault of QP, and they have no intention of making compensation to JSS? And why the 1% reference? That seems arbitrary to me." If you had bothered to read the posts of other people (mainly John's) you would not ask all these questions which were already addressed. Speaking of dragging on an issue with redundant posts...."If you had bothered?" I have read many of John's posts. My next question is, if things are so cut and dry, then why has not John been able to solve this problem on his own in a timely manner? Greg read your comment about your experience with QP in the "Open Letter" thread, and that is what he decided to respond to in this incidence. You did not intend to open up the argument by your comment to this person who had not heard your story, but Greg interpreted the comment by you to be an opening of the same (unsolved) dispute again. Instead of replying to your post to discuss it in the thread in which your post occured, he started multiple threads, first starting with humor to cover his frustration, then getting defensive after reading some of the more serious (and nasty) comments that always accompany a QZ "discussion". I think most here do take his comments for what they are - humor to cover his frustration. But nobody here should be trying to hurt another person. If humor and poking fun here is hurting someone, then it should stop. Likewise, if telling the same story of a personal disappointment is hurting someone here, that too should stop. I think that if the two of you could solve the problem it would be good for you two, and also good for all those here who have gotten "involved". I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term. I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter. |
brENsKi 31.08.2007 14:59 |
Greg if i send you a load of my most cherished photos of my son when he was newborn - will you promise me that you will ensure they get shredded or burned ? when it comes to a task of this magnitude it's reassuring to know that QPL and Greg are the only reliable option when - it's important to know that irreplaceable items can be disposed of safely, never to be seen again. - ;-) |
Micrówave 31.08.2007 15:07 |
John S Stuart wrote:John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one.Micrówave wrote: Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later. Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you. Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released? Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it? |
YourValentine 31.08.2007 15:27 |
"I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term. I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter." Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up. I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material. On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish. You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :) |
John S Stuart 31.08.2007 15:36 |
Micrówave wrote:But that is NOT what happened.John S Stuart wrote:John, you're not using a fair comparison. So let me try to use one. Think about a Picasso painting, which Picasso decides it ain't that great so he puts it in his storage shed. 20 years later someone has broken into that storage shed and stolen the painting. He sells it to Bob. Bob sells it to Joe. And then Joe sells it to you. Is it right for you to profit off the sale of the painting, one that was never intended to be released? Is it right that you sent it to the estate of picasso because they wanted to release a picture of it in a tribute book to Picasso fans and don't feel obligated to send back their stolen painting even though you weren't the one who stole it?Micrówave wrote: Why does anyone with an unofficial release think they are entitled to profit from someone else's work? What about the band? The film or audio crew? The owners of the venue that put on the show? Have they been properly compensated?In otherwords, thinking about a Picasso painting, once filthy lucre exchanges hands, then the painting becomes no longer the property of Picasso, but the property of the new legal owner. In a court of law, because Picasso accepted a fair exchange - his rights of ownership are transfred or relinquished, and can not complain if his work esculates in value many years later. Rather, if someone OWNS a personal painting, photograph or even a cassette tape - and THEY decide to put up THEIR artefact for sale as an auction lot, it is not exactly theft - is it! Now I know that I may be subjected to some sort of ridicule for this simple belief, but, if rare Queen memorabillia comes up for sale at Sotheby's or Christie's (or even e-bay) as part of a public auction - why should my bid be different from any other collectors? And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like? Once ownership has been exchanged, as I stated above, then it legally becomes the property of the purchaser. If this was not the case, why have auctions in the first place? |
Holly2003 31.08.2007 15:38 |
YourValentine wrote: I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident.Indeed. |
Donna13 31.08.2007 16:01 |
"I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)" I agree. And I must say - that is sweet. |
Micrówave 31.08.2007 16:08 |
John S Stuart wrote: And if I happen to win that bid, why is it that it is NOT my property to do with what I like?Well, yes John. That's fair. So you bought a bootleg that hadn't become a bootleg. You made sure it didn't become a bootleg. That's what I understand is reasonable ownership. I don't think that entitles you to ownership of the recording, though. Just the actual tape. The sound recordings are still property of the artist. I do feel for you, but I also think that you should have expected this. I have no way of knowing if Greg was personally responsible for the loss, but maybe you have no one else to point the finger at. I think a fair question for Greg would be has he specifically talked to Jim Beach or someone who could do something or take responsibility. Not a letter, a phone call, but a face to face conversation? After all this time? Or maybe he has and their stance is "tough luck, pal." Now if Greg couriered that message to you, that certainly wouldn't help things either. |
Janet 31.08.2007 16:30 |
YourValentine wrote: "I don't mind somebody defending somebody here, but I do think if they try to escalate the matter beyond what it should be, by berating others, it does not help to solve the problem in the short term. I'm not sure if anyone here has the power to make Greg stop stating his side of things in multiple threads and poking fun. We can only ask him to stop. I hope we can all get past this and be friends. And I think YV is your friend. Sorry I could not be of any help in this matter." Donna13 - to make it crystal clear: I do not have a problem with you and I am not into any fights here. If you think that my comments are "escalating matters" I want to remind you that I answered this thread because Greg asked for my opinion in two threads. Escalating or not - I do have an opinion in this matter and I will repeat it whenever the topic will come up. I don't understand why it is so hard to see the unfairness in this incident. On the one hand you have a collector who spends thousands on rare tapes because it's the passion of his life. He is not rich but he is patient, determined, spends a lot of time in researching and tracking down rare material. On the other hand you have a multi million organisation who apparently is not so determined and passionate about their past recordings. They borrow an old tape from the collector, lose it and tell him "oh, just bad luck". Instead of paying a compensation and apologise they allow their bully of an archivist to offend the collector on a public message board. There is no humour in Greg's attacks, they are mean and childish. You think I am John's friend. Well, I am sure if I ever come near his house I might ring up and spend some time listening to some Queen tapes. A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)Best post on this entire thread. Here here, Barb. |
Erin 31.08.2007 16:37 |
YourValentine wrote: A common hobby brings people together and I have never been disappointed meeting a Queen fan :)You haven't met Pieter yet. What a FREAK! You gotta watch those Scots, I tell ya... |
Sebastian 31.08.2007 16:41 |
Indeed, I agree with John's comment. Should a TV programme give all royalties to the relatives of who invented the idiot box? About YV's insights, I agree too: the fact that QP are a multi-millionaire company matters, since it wouldn't hurt them (economically) to at least try to make up for their blunder, especially since it's offending a loyal customer. The fact they can't even accept they did something wrong (except for Greg, whose mum comment was indeed funny IMO) is more disappointing than the physical side (i.e. the cassette) of the whole experience. |
Drowse1 09.09.2007 15:59 |
Just wondering Greg. have you apologised yet? |
Leaky Luke 10.09.2007 19:49 |
This is getting annoyingly boring Welcome to JSS and GB zone! |
Raf 20.09.2007 10:18 |
Greg, did you lose JSS' Ibex tape? |
deleted user 20.09.2007 11:14 |
Jeeez. =| |
dont try suicide 20.09.2007 18:54 |
i think john stole the tape. |
Fenderek 04.12.2007 08:29 |
Not taking ANY sides- I must admit I had a good laugh reading "mom" story... :) |