| Queen Archivist 02.09.2007 00:14 |
Everything was going along reasonably nicely here, in recent months.... more or less, by GB Queen Archivist standards anyway. GB/QZ, it was relatively calm seas. But then when a certain irritating person hijacked a thread for his own selfish means, I got pissed off again at him, and then Barb and Janet and the girls got all humpty too with me, and the whole thing esculated somewhat. I really do think, by the way, that Barb is going off me you know! She doesn't send me flowers any more, nor sing me love songs. She hardly talks to me any more when I come through the door at the end of the day. Anyway, I only have time to read the odd thing here on QZ these past months, one day a fortnight, roughly speaking, or a few hours in between the odd job, or therabouts, and sometimes more... so I cannot get to EVERYTHING. This annoys a few of you, but I cannot get to everything and that's life. And, besides, when you analyse it, I have actually answered 99.99999% of the questions posed here already, if people did the research. Everything asked here, bar very little, has been asked of me at conventions or on QOL, or on here at QZ. So please go looking for it before asking it again and again. I think that's fair. There are not enough hours in the day for me to get to even 10% of the repititious questions I see scattered throughout this site - posted by people who then get disappointed because I don't reply. But when I do come here I would if possible like it to be a bit constructive... by which I mean, spending my time answering questions such as like this.... NO WE DO NOT HAVE THE GOLDERS GREEN CONCERT IN FULL IN THE ARCHIVE, ON A DECENT FORMAT, NOT THAT I CAN RECALL ANYWAY, AND NOT THAT I HAVE SEEN OR HEARD IN RECENT YEARS, BUT YES PLEASE WE WOULD LIKE IT - OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD - BUT NOT IF THERE ARE STRINGS ATTACHED, OR CONDITIONS, OR IN SUPPLYING A COPY WE PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY, AGAIN, FOR ANYONE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT LOST THINGS FROM YEARS AGO WHICH HAVE NO BEARING ON ANYTHING IN 2007, OR TO THE GOLDERS GREEN GIG. YES WE'D LOVE A COPY. YES PLEASE. BRING IT ON. Or is this another Queen at Sunbury 1974 tapes fairytale? So, less hijacking and complaining, and let's try to cross more constructive bridges than some of those among us would otherwise have us cross. Like you, I can certainly do without getting into futile arguments with anyone - unlesss it's productive or creative - and certainly not arguments I have already had 7 or 8 times in as many years. That is boring for all concerned, surely you agree. There must be many things to talk about that are more worthy than the crap that has tied me up this weekend... YES Barb, I know that's largely my own fault. That's true. I bring some of it on myself, yes, ok. Hands up to that. Yes Janet, 'here here Greg, you're right there' You are right to be 'here hereing' on this one, you little monkey! So, I'm up for newer and more intriguing roads ahead. I've had it up to the back teeth with covering OLD ground again and again, AND also with answering the same old tired questions endlessly. If you are about to ask me a question about what is or is not in the archive, whether we have plans to do a Best Of Brian or Best of Roger compilation, etc, all of which I addresed at conventions, etc, please go Google it first and see if you can find me responding to it already. It's a much more efficient way of working. If or when I do find myself answering the same questions again, I do get a bit bored - as you know - and can tend to take the piss or write silly things to pass the boredom threshold a bit, or get into wind-ups that are all too easy. I cannot help myself. MUCH MORE creative and original questions I have not already answered ten-fold are much more like to provoke a response. Some chap on QZ started a really great thread about other artists' archives - such as Prince's audio tapes deteriorating but him NOT letting them be baked for protection. And Stevie |
| Queen Archivist 02.09.2007 00:16 |
That other thread, by the way...the interesting one I mention above is called. Queen - Serious Discussion> THE UNRELEASED / UNFINISHED QUEEN ARCHIVES COMPARED TO OTHEER ARTIST |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2007 03:20 |
Queen Archivist wrote:...NO WE DO NOT HAVE THE GOLDERS GREEN CONCERT IN FULL IN THE ARCHIVE, ON A DECENT FORMAT, NOT THAT I CAN RECALL ANYWAY, AND NOT THAT I HAVE SEEN OR HEARD IN RECENT YEARS, BUT YES PLEASE WE WOULD LIKE IT - OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD - BUT NOT IF THERE ARE STRINGS ATTACHED, OR CONDITIONS, OR IN SUPPLYING A COPY WE PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY, AGAIN, FOR ANYONE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT LOST THINGS FROM YEARS AGO WHICH HAVE NO BEARING ON ANYTHING IN 2007, OR TO THE GOLDERS GREEN GIG. YES WE'D LOVE A COPY. YES PLEASE. BRING IT ON. Or is this another Queen at Sunbury 1974 tapes fairytale?I tried, I really tried. What more could I do? |
| Queen Archivist 02.09.2007 06:41 |
Nobody could ever say that you are not always trying... very trying. |
| The Fairy King 02.09.2007 06:52 |
Childish. |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2007 07:09 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Nobody could ever say that you are not always trying... very trying.And genuine fans wonder why collectors do NOT wish to share their treasures with QPL... I always found it unfair that we were the one's accused of hoarding our rarities, when in fact nothing could be further than the truth. At the end of the day, I will still own this 'Master', and while QPL can afford to turn their nose up to this (and the many other rarities I possess) it is a shame because it is the genuine fans who will suffer and lose out because of such pettiness. So while you preach '...pooling of resources in everyone's best interests...', in reality, you (and your employers) do not give a damn. As long as the musical is a success, they can string us along with yet another re-re-release and the hope of a non-materialising anthology. It is all lip-service. If you (by that I mean QPL) do NOT wish fans to contribute, do NOT ask - or if THEY really do wish collector collaboration, then I really think YOU need to attend some public relations courses, as I for one would rather burn my collection than donate it to such a spiteful and indifferent organisation. |
| Donna13 02.09.2007 09:54 |
"I for one would rather burn my collection than donate it to such a spiteful and indifferent organisation." Ooooh. That is what I call a passionate hobby. Be sure to use fire safety, John. |
| Erin 02.09.2007 11:19 |
If you want LESS argumentative threads, then why make another? |
| Mr Faron Hyte 02.09.2007 12:58 |
John S Stuart wrote: ... then I really think YOU need to attend some public relations courses ...Well said. Ooops, there I go again! |
| john bodega 02.09.2007 13:14 |
I think if I locked the lot of you in a room with one gun, this problem would get sorted in under an hour. Just get the hell over yourselves you insular people. GB, stop being a cocksucker, JSS just hand over the goods - it's not even yours anyway. Come on, what if a comet wiped us all out tomorrow?? Jesus Christ. Just..... DO THE THING. |
| john bodega 02.09.2007 13:24 |
link OH LOOK at that. Argument over. Cool! |
| Erin 02.09.2007 14:20 |
Zebonka12 wrote: link OH LOOK at that. Argument over. Cool!LOL...you really like using that pic, don't you? ;-) |
| Bohardy 02.09.2007 14:22 |
FEWER... |
| Donna13 02.09.2007 15:17 |
Bohardy wrote: FEWER...Less is more? |
| Gratzi 02.09.2007 15:26 |
Donna13 wrote:No no! I think he's got a point! /:)Bohardy wrote: FEWER...Less is more? |
| John S Stuart 02.09.2007 15:37 |
Zebonka12 wrote: ...JSS just hand over the goods - it's not even yours anyway...What gives you that idea? Besides, I want a new house. Why don't you hand me over yours? |
| GiantSpider 02.09.2007 15:38 |
If your not going to give it to him I don't suppose your going to share it here neither? |
| Penetration_Guru 02.09.2007 15:52 |
...beats head against wall in frustrated disbelief...some more... |
| john bodega 03.09.2007 06:41 |
"What gives you that idea?" I don't recall seeing you in the studio recording any of it. "Besides, I want a new house. Why don't you hand me over yours?" Because you haven't helped to build bits of it. I might go on a trek to the Titanic and 'find' a neat pair of mens shoes, but they sure ain't mine! |
| John S Stuart 03.09.2007 07:03 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "What gives you that idea?" I don't recall seeing you in the studio recording any of it. "Besides, I want a new house. Why don't you hand me over yours?" Because you haven't helped to build bits of it. I might go on a trek to the Titanic and 'find' a neat pair of mens shoes, but they sure ain't mine!How many times do I have to say this? I was NOT in the studio when Picasso painted his 'Le Reve' either, but, if the painting legitimately came up for sale, via auction, then I would, by law - OWN that painting. This is called transfer of ownership. This works because I live in a Capitalist society, and I have legally PAID for the privilege of ownership - and if that painting increases in value over thirty years, even Picasso’s grandchildren would have no claim on MY property because I legitimately own the painting. I also legitimately own my home, my car, my television etc because I also paid for them. Do you want me to hand those over too? However, I am OPEN to negotiation, and I have generously OFFERED MY TAPE up to Queen Productions - if THEY desire it. I am NOT keeping anthing from them. But, (and I hope this is viewed in context) because of past experience, I am loath to hand over anything without some sort of caveats in place to protect ALL parties. Is that stll being too unreasonable for you - or do you think I am being fair? Why is that so difficult to understand - and why does that make ME the villian of the piece? What more would you have me do? |
| john bodega 03.09.2007 07:45 |
"How many times do I have to say this?" Probably less than 5, but I don't think that'll stop you... "I was NOT in the studio when Picasso painted his 'Le Reve' either, but, if the painting legitimately came up for sale, via auction, then I would, by law - OWN that painting." Different circumstances!! I'm referring to demos and things that really shouldn't be in the hands of anyone but those who recorded them. Of course I love to listen to these things, I find them fascinating. But one shouldn't get all Me Me Me and Mine Mine Mine over something they shouldn't have in the first place. "I also legitimately own my home, my car, my television etc because I also paid for them. Do you want me to hand those over too?" Non sequitur. "However, I am OPEN to negotiation, and I have generously OFFERED MY TAPE up to Queen Productions - if THEY desire it. I am NOT keeping anthing from them. But, (and I hope this is viewed in context) because of past experience, I am loath to hand over anything without some sort of caveats in place to protect ALL parties. Is that stll being too unreasonable for you - or do you think I am being fair? " Can you STOP typing like my HERO William SHATNER? No, look - you've been bitten by this asshats before and I quite agree with you on this score. "Why is that so difficult to understand - and why does that make ME the villian of the piece?" Who the hell says I thought you were the villain? I'd happily give a lot more shit to GB, he's earned it. I'm merely pointing out that you can only be so possessive over stuff you weren't meant to have in the first place. I think you have me mistaken with someone who has some kind of emotional investment in all this bullshit. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.09.2007 07:53 |
Yeah, I love JSS's analogies cause they're always so rubbish! lol But seriously, I like to think I have a solution to this passing of copies to QP... Okay, seriously, think about this one JSS. I understand why QP would want the master to reproduce a great sound. However, they don't like copies from joe bloggs, i.e. you. It's a quality thing. Now, I, being the engineer that I am, would love to do quality copies IF...you were being serious about that JSS. That means you can keep the originals and the copies of certain items of your choosing go to QP. Now, I am open to doing these transfers of items in your possession. But of course, this is up to you. Adam. |
| John S Stuart 03.09.2007 08:44 |
Zebonka: '...I'm referring to demos and things that really shouldn't be in the hands of anyone but those who recorded them... something... (you) ...shouldn't have in the first place'. Forgive me, but please explain exactly why I 'shouldn't have... (these) ...in the first place...' - if I am the sole legal owner? This physical tape was NOT recorded in a studio and never did belong to QPL at any stage. Queen were paid (commissioned) by the BBC for this live performance, so QPL have NO legal claim or stake - as they (like every other worker in the UK) were paid for their hire, and subsequent broadcasting rights. They did not at any stage have ownership of this artefact. The manufactured article (in this case a reel of tape), until re-sale, remains the property of the patron – and not the employee. (And that is why I likened this tape to Picasso's 'Le Reve'). Now, I OWN this artefact - legally, morally, philosophically and most importantly materially, and what's more important, QPL could have bought this reel, just as easily as I did, but they did not. However, when such items do periodically come up for sale, everyone, (even you or QPL) has the same equal opportunities to purchase (Especially at public auction). Things from Beatles acetates to bits of Hendrix's guitar and Elvis Presley's shoes - from Alan Ball's World Cup Winner's medal to Paul Gascoign's shirts – and if memory serves me correctly, even Freddie's car was offered up on e-bay last year. There are a myriad of reasons why recorded demos are NOT in the hands of those who recorded them - but the point is - they are not. It's not my fault, nor did I invent the rules. I just bought this reel the same as I would buy a packet of cigars. Adam Baboolal: Good try, but there is no way I would ever get involved with a third party. (Especially with someone who thinks my communication skills are ‘...rubbish!’). If this is an issue it is one between Queen productions and myself. I for my part, have offered up my at end. The remainder is now up to them. Other than that, as I have previously asked, what more would you that I do? |
| FriedChicken 03.09.2007 08:53 |
A package of cigarettes doesn't have any artists rights.. It's not that the artists can claim the cd's you bought back. But it is illegal to make money from the music you bought (if it's official or not official stuff) because it falls under the artists protection laws. It means that everything an artists writes or records it is protected. So unless you pay for the rights to distribute it you can not make money from it |
| John S Stuart 03.09.2007 09:00 |
Fried Chicken: '...So unless you pay for the rights to distribute it you can not make money from it'. Good point. As a work of art (or music) I have not distributed this - nor have I made any money from it. I actually bought this tape like I would buy any other tape, LP or CD - to listen to the music - NOT as an investment. Therefore, at present it sits proudly amid the rest of my collection. However, what I DID purchase (legally I continue to add) was a physical reel-to-reel tape. That is without dispute what I own - a physical artefact - one which I can re-record over, or even set a match to - if I so desire, because it is MY property to do with what I will. So if anyone else wants to purchase this reel (and that includes Queen Productions) they are more than welcome - I would sell - exactly as I bought. As I said above, I bought myself a 'thing', just like thousands before me, and thousands will continue to do so, and even IF I make a profit from that process, I have committed no wrong. There is nothing more to discuss really, other than the philosophical rights and wrongs of a Capitalist society, and although I agree it is morally wrong that half the world should starve to death, while the other half approaches mortal obesity, I do not think this is the correct forum to discuss the Marxist alternative. |
| john bodega 03.09.2007 09:54 |
"Now, I OWN this artefact" Are you familiar with the phrase 'can't take it with you' ? "There are a myriad of reasons why these demos are NOT in the hands of those who recorded them - but the point is - they are not. It's not my fault, not did I invent the rules. I just bought them the same as I would buy a packet of cigars." Honestly.... for your time and for your trouble in buying/safekeeping these rarities, I believe it'd only be fair for QP to not act like they have in the past (ie. Incompetent jackasses). So you've rights to be annoyed at them. At the same time; your attitude is beneath you. If you can't get things done with QP, seek some other avenue. Or go into obscurity. But this form of shit-slinging between you and GB is only so much nonsense. "This is between me, Queen productions and no one else." You forgot to add 'but I'll gladly wax lyrical about it all on a public forum'. |
| John S Stuart 03.09.2007 10:24 |
Zebonka12: I answered your questions honestly and reasonably, because I thought that is what you wanted from me. If it was not – then I apologise. It was certainly not meant as a form of ‘showing-off’ or waxing lyrical. You asked - I answered. I thought that was the polite way to behave. However, if you wish me to stop replying then I will gladly do so. Remember I have provided all these answers on a voluntary basis, so it would be just as easy for me to say nothing. I have not slung ‘shit’ at anyone else, nor have I deteriorated into name-calling or foul language, as I thought I would be open and candid, and allow for informed and reasoned debate. If I 'read' that reasoning wrong, then again I apologise. I have not retaliated against Greg’s rants (and I hate being perceived as doing so) – rather yet again, I thought I provided reasonable counter viewpoints, as I believe that in a democracy both parties should be permitted their say – without prejudice – but I do not view that as being either argumentative or controversial. On the contrary, I view debate as both healthy and productive. I would also like to point out that although I have replied to several such threads, I have only instigated one re: gauging the 'zone's opinion on an official 'Golder's Green' release, and that too was without malice or contempt. However, I do agree with you. 'I cannot take it with me'. But even if I did, and was cremated with all my ‘treasures’ in my coffin with me, this would be but a drop in the ocean as compared to what is in the Queen vaults and will never see the light of day - EVER. On the other hand, if you really are that desperate for a copy of the ‘Golders Green’ concert, you can find one here: link So I am not keeping anything back from you (or anyone else for that matter). I have always said this, however, I get a great feeling of resentment (which I confess could be wrong) that I am holding onto something which should be shared with others, and while I agree with that to some extent, I think the real anger is transferred from QPL as they are the ones who have so much to offer other than re-re-releases – and like us all, they cannot take it with them either. |
| Donna13 03.09.2007 11:12 |
"But even if I did, and was cremated with all my ‘treasures’ in my coffin with me..." Haha. Born in Arizona, Moved to Babylonia ... |
| john bodega 03.09.2007 11:15 |
JSS: Just to cover a couple of things you said, as I'm up to my eyeballs in flu medication at the moment and can't concentrate.... "I answered your questions honestly and reasonably, because I thought that is what you wanted from me. If it was not – then I apologise. It was certainly not meant as a form of ‘showing-off’ or waxing lyrical. You asked - I answered." Well met, but that's not what I was on about. I mean the whole dialogue that's carried on for months 'n' whatnot; I didn't mean 'waxing lyrical' in reference to what you'd said to me. "On the other hand, if you really are that desperate for a copy of the ‘Golders Green’ concert" Sorry man, barking up the wrong tree here!! I stopped chasing up non-official Queen stuff a while ago now... though I still nag people for Face it Alone because I think it's funny. Seriously... all I'm getting at is that there's opportunity for positive action on both sides of the fence. If QP aren't big enough human beings to do it, then it might as well be you! And don't interpret that as an 'upload everything' (that'd be more my style - just to shit people off a bit.....) I simply mean.. whatever you wind up doing, it doesn't need to involve bickering with that GB so-and-so. Sit on your rarities, set fire to your rarities, sell your rarities to someone in a move that'd upset QP.... do what you will with your rarities, but this place has seen enough threads on the matter I think - and it'd be a cold day in hell before you get reasonable treatment from QP concerning any of this. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.09.2007 11:22 |
Well John...I'm not sure what to think now. I had been reading your initial posts thinking that you wanted to give them some recordings that you have. But after calling me a "3rd party", I now realise that you don't want to send anything. Next time, just say, -it's my stuff and I don't want to let any of it out of my sight-. Instead of saying, "However, I am OPEN to negotiation, and I have generously OFFERED MY TAPE up to Queen Productions - if THEY desire it. I am NOT keeping anthing from them." "...because of past experience, I am loath to hand over anything without some sort of caveats in place to protect ALL parties." A 3rd party? No, John. I wouldn't call anyone here something so official and cold. A QZ'er, for instance, is far nicer. Adam. |
| John S Stuart 03.09.2007 11:36 |
Zebonka 12: Believe me when I tell you - no-one is a fed-up and cheesed-off with this whole episode than I am. I have even kept away from this site for the last few months because given everything else that is happening in my life at the moment, I really do not need this stress. But I am only human, and when I see my name being dragged through the mud, by people I do not know, then it is really hard for me to bite my lip and say nothing. My only defence is that I do NOT start these things. They even started when I was absent and could not - or did not reply. You are right, I should rise above it, but I justify it personally by reasoning - 'It's a reply' - so the thread would still exist without my contribution. As for rarities can I quote Mr. Monk? They are '...both a blessing and a curse...'. And as for people saying 'Peace on both sides' or 'arbitration or mediation', can I please just say that my position has never changed. It has been as constant as the North star. I have no beef against Mr. Brooks personally, and I have no problem sharing, BUT (and here is the rub) I have no faith in QPL, so it really is up to them to make any moves. They know where I am. (Hell my e-mail is even available on this site). Now call me petty if you will (and in this case I will accept it) but I am dammned if I am chasing after some multi-million pound corporation like some star-struck puppy - if they are NOT interested then that is THEIR choice. Not mine. I hope that this helps explain my feelings a bit more - but what you guys need to remember is I too am a fan - and just a frustrated at this current 'regime' as the rest of you. |
| john bodega 03.09.2007 11:42 |
All quite understandable sirrah; and thanks for the prompt replies. Gaw I hate a conversation that drags on for weeks!! In truth... we are all here (presumably) for the same reason; Queen! I can only say, here's hoping that it all gets sorted one day. |
| John S Stuart 03.09.2007 11:50 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Well John...I'm not sure what to think now. I had been reading your initial posts thinking that you wanted to give them some recordings that you have. But after calling me a "3rd party", I now realise that you don't want to send anything. Next time, just say, -it's my stuff and I don't want to let any of it out of my sight-. Instead of saying, "However, I am OPEN to negotiation, and I have generously OFFERED MY TAPE up to Queen Productions - if THEY desire it. I am NOT keeping anthing from them." "...because of past experience, I am loath to hand over anything without some sort of caveats in place to protect ALL parties." A 3rd party? No, John. I wouldn't call anyone here something so official and cold. A QZ'er, for instance, is far nicer. Adam.Adam, I gave what I thought was an honest reply. That does not negate what I said, nor does it contain any hidden meanings between the lines. So please do not add another layer of interpretation which does not exist. I only meant '3rd party' as a generic factual term - not a term of insult or denegration. What else can I say - it was NOT meant personally. But if you feel I wrote about you in an insensitve fashion, then I am sorry. If you wish me to say another Q'zoner, then I will change it to read Q'zoner. Maybe it is a macho thing, but, if QPL do not wish to deal with me direct - then they can kiss my a*se. If that is childish - then so be it. But as I said to Zebonka above, they know how to contact me. Nothing personal. No hidden agenda. No atrnative motives. Again I apologise if I appeared heartless and insensitive. |
| Mr Mercury 03.09.2007 12:31 |
John, I'm just throwing out a thought here, but why not take up Adam's offer with the agreement of you being there in the same place (providing, of course, Adam can get permission from whoever or whatever, etc). That way you will also get to see what happens to any stuff that may have been copied onto computers - whether the stuff is wiped completely, etc. That way you will get a high quality (industry standard I presume?) transfer that could be used by QPL, and you get to keep your original stuff (and possibly end up with a high transfer for yourself - providing Adam can do this again of course). Like I said, this is just me throwing out a thought that I hope could go some way to resolving any issues between yourself and QPL. All this is provided that Adam wants to/can do his part as well. |
| Adam Baboolal 04.09.2007 08:20 |
Just to make something clear, I am NOT part of a studio. So, there'd be no-one around to steal the tracks! Also, I don't have industry standard equipment per se. Though, in the next year or so, it would be possible to obtain some or go somewhere I can get in for free! But I get the feeling John doesn't want to do anything, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that. But the offer is always there. It would be a privilege to be a part of it. Adam. |
| Mr Mercury 04.09.2007 09:14 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Just to make something clear, I am NOT part of a studio. So, there'd be no-one around to steal the tracks! Also, I don't have industry standard equipment per se. Though, in the next year or so, it would be possible to obtain some or go somewhere I can get in for free! But I get the feeling John doesn't want to do anything, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that. But the offer is always there. It would be a privilege to be a part of it. Adam.Ok thanks for clearing that up Adam. I couldnt remember if you said whether you were at Uni doing your audio stuff or not, and that was why I mentioned about permission and all that stuff. And I wasnt suggesting that you would steal the tracks either - you dont come across as that sort of person (at least on here anyway) As for John, it appears as though some sort of "olive branch" has been extended in this thread link So I suppose its up to the respective parties now. Off topic - I just checked out your profile on myspace. Raining In Baltimore is an excellent song!! Well done Adam Dave |
| Bobby_brown 04.09.2007 09:48 |
I might be wrong, but in this case i think i would act like JSS. If he owns such rare artefacts by Queen, it´s only natural to negotiate with oficial Queen staff in the first place. A third party would mean = leaked stuff to be bootleged! Even though with QueenProductions there´s that possibility too, at least there would be signed contratcts to save interests of both parties. If i was a Queen member or someone related to QP (and it doesn´t have to be Greg Brooks - let´s respect the fact that this two guys don´t get along- we all have relations like this!), and heard that someone has a studio version of "Hangman" or any other items that were almost impossible to find in other source, i think i would do everything i could to get a deal with that somebody. I remind you that a couple of years ago, a private collector who owns a never released song by Jimy Hendrix had signed a deal with the Hendrix family allowing that song to be released and earning him part of the royalties. Is this fair?- Well, it´s just business, so yes, it´s more than fair! Everybody wins- the fans, familly, and the collector. Before judging this, just think about how big companies make money. The artists are not that well paid concerning royalties. It gets a time in the history of a band like Queen, that doing things thinking about money is just not the best thing to do. Why?- because with Queen, if the product is good, the return is guaranteed. Even if the peoduct isn´t good, Queen will sell it anyway! So, my opinion is: If Queen are going to release the Box Sets, this will probably be their best product EVER, and one of the most collectable items you´ll ever put your hands on! Musicians and music fans in general want to hear how did they manage to do it in the studio. It´s like the Beatles and Pink Floyd. In the future there are certain artists products like this boxes wich will be used not only for pleasure purposes but also for study purposes! And if Queen are really going for the best of the best box sets around, it´s up to them to really trace everything they can. Negotiate with everyone! I think it would be more frustating to release something, and then discover that it was not complete. If JSS is open for negotiations with them, then i think it´s a damn good start, don´t you? Take care |
| Boy Thomas Raker 04.09.2007 10:46 |
Great thoughts Bobby Brown. I'm totally confused as I do believe JSS and his version of events, but for all we know, he may be a raving nutter, as Greg implies. Of course Greg comes on here to stir the pot, and he seems to delight in taking a rise out of JSS for no particular reason. Not adult behavior for a representative of QP, but these two aren't going to work it out. On the business side of things, John holds all the cards. I believe he has things that would be a necessity for the definitive Queen box set (release date, 2034.) He's been burned by QP before, why would he deal with them without safeguards? It's John's property, no-one else's, so if he can sell it for the price he wants, he should do that, but to expect him to ship it to a third party of release it for the greater good of the fans that want to hear it? Bizarre. Stick to your guns Johnny. |
| Crezchi 05.09.2007 14:48 |
Ok, ok people calm the hell down! This is just a recording for God's sake! To end the confusion on JSS's recording, he OWNS the recording and can do whatever he chooses, perhaps you don't understand that when you buy an artist's recording like this one, you also buy the copyright, just as i have done in the past with Reels, Photos, and lyrics. So i guess to you ignorant twats you actually believe that when Michael Jackson bought 'The Beatles' Catalog that he isn't the rightful owner and cannot make the profit from the sales? LOL Same category, get over this shit because JSS is the Sole Owner of the recording if it was purchased from one who owned the recording. Who gives a flying fuck about QP anyways? Not me! Us Collectors and fans have more items than they will ever have and will ever see. Until they want to shut up and listen to us and release what should be released, then go blow a tree. I think that WE KNOW MORE OF WHAT WE WANT TO WATCH AND LISTEN TO THAN YOU QUEEN PRODUCTIONS ASSHOLES! Think for once GREG BROOKS, you fat slobby asshole! You are about the most childist and patronizing little fuck i have ever seen! Maybe i will send in a little (just a little) note to your employer's about how to obtain 'Hooked on Phonics', and the new book 'Archiving for Dummies' books! And go out a take a PR and Customer service class! WE ARE THE CUSTOMERS AND ALL OF YOUR EMPLOYERS! EVEN TO YOU BRIAN, AND ROGER, WITHOUT US, YOU WOULDN'T BE WHERE YOU ARE TODAY, WE ARE YOUR EMPLOYERS!! Ok enough of my rants, but i am so sickened with the whole argument bit. GB is a child in a fat swine's body, and JSS is an intelect in a Whiney kids body, anyone care? Nope. I respect the both of them to a certain extent, JSS, for obvious reasons, GB, for being so brave enough to even talk here! LOL. |
| john bodega 06.09.2007 03:53 |
"Ok, ok people calm the hell down!" It's nice that you put that in front of the rant. Putting it at the end might've made you look like a hypocrite! |
| Penetration_Guru 06.09.2007 07:36 |
All that was missing was "sorry for my english....greetz" |
| Micrówave 06.09.2007 14:29 |
Maybe you guys should collect Star Trek dolls or something. It's one frickin' performance, right? "The fans are missing out"!!! Are you kidding me? The fans have moved on. Or is this the concert that "took the world by storm"? |
| Jjeroen 07.09.2007 07:51 |
Micrówave wrote: Maybe you guys should collect Star Trek dolls or something. It's one frickin' performance, right? "The fans are missing out"!!! Are you kidding me? The fans have moved on. Or is this the concert that "took the world by storm"?Star Trek dolls?! LOL! In GB's case, you're actually closer to reality than you probably think! ;-) |
| Leaky Luke 08.09.2007 06:19 |
So after let's say 5 years of fighting between those 2 people (JSS and GB) all we got now is another thread with arguments and I must say sumwat abbusive (yes Chezchi you) rants. What I was wondering. Can't the collectors of Queenzone (and perhaps other queensites, with a certain amount of collectors) create their own archive? I take it, that, when what Crezchi said in his rant about " You buy the item, you buy the rights for it", that you are not allowed to reproduce it? If so.. When the people of QZ and etc. create their own archive and are allowed to release certain stuff, this world of Queenfans would be a much happier place. |
| Leaky Luke 08.09.2007 06:27 |
wait I said that wrong.. let's say that Michael Jackson has the right for the Beatles collection, he has the right to sell these items? if so when collectors buy a queen product, are they allowed to share it with the rest of the world? |
| Griffin 08.09.2007 08:10 |
can we? dunno, but Greg seems to be having a 'Treasure Moment.' as for John's analogies, I need an analgesic. the lost Ibex tape thread and the Golders Green thread inspire me to buy the big iPod or some other mp3/video player, decorate it like a bottle of Moet et Chandon, and cram it to the gills with Queen. End of existential dilemma format vs content. must be a lot of other folks who have done this or something like it by now...I searched on 'boxset' here on QZ and found some interesting posts by Dennis Daja and Dobo. Does Jim Jenkins post on QZ? I'd love to hear his thoughts about this mountainous and snaky search for the Queen catalog grail. |
| john bodega 08.09.2007 09:34 |
"Can't the collectors of Queenzone (and perhaps other queensites, with a certain amount of collectors) create their own archive?" A physical archive would never work. Things would get political and blood would get spilt. Maybe a digital one would work out, but I highly doubt it'd be one that people could download from, willy nilly. Who'd pay for the bandwidth? I always figured though, that if everyone uploaded everything, that QZ would be a sort of archive anyhow - more a sort of "Can someone reupload this?" archive if anything. That would also never work. You'd get some clever son of a bitch refusing to upload one or two things, which would defeat the purpose. What'd be really nice is if everything was available in shitty quality, and then collectors/traders could merely squabble over the actual discs/reels/tapes themselves. A thousand people could download "Hangman(Studio).mp3", but only one person can own the original acetate. It'd still be worth something ; trading could still go on, I reckon. Again.... that'd never work. But mostly because people are doubting and obtuse. And not because it's a bad idea. |
| Leaky Luke 08.09.2007 10:38 |
I still don't get the greed over a single song. Sure I understand that money is an issue. But then again if you put for example Golder's Green online for a certain amount of money, the owner would still get profit from it. For example, you bought Golder's green for roughly 50 dollars, put it on sale for 15 euros.. a 100 people pay for it.. your reward 1450 dollars. |
| onevsion 09.09.2007 01:14 |
Leaky Luke wrote: wait I said that wrong.. let's say that Michael Jackson has the right for the Beatles collection, he has the right to sell these items? if so when collectors buy a queen product, are they allowed to share it with the rest of the world?Depends on the terms of sale. If copyright is sold with the actual item you can. If not, you can't. This is pretty much the same for art (real expensive paintings are sold that way> no poster repros can be sold, and things like movies, manuscripts, photographs and so on) international intellectual property law can be can really restrictive sometimes. |
