| Jan78 04.02.2008 23:41 |
Just one question...not wanting to be a party pooper...but how come that everybody gets so amazingly excited when usually there would be nicer and not so nice voices saying "it's offical, can't be shared, please remove"? In saying that, the future now should be to share any recording whatsoever, everything else would be hypocritical, right? Jan |
| thunderbolt 31742 05.02.2008 00:57 |
I see your point, and have wondered about it myself, and I would argue that it depends on your definition of the word "official." If someone were to come on here and post the album version of KQ or BR, of course they'd be asked to take it down. However, these are the raw 24-tracks--not a finished product. These multitracks were never officially released in any album. The finished, mixed product of these tracks has been released, but the recordings themselves haven't. That said, I do think it's only a matter of time before QPL finds out about this (they probably already know) and sends QZ a love letter explaining how they generally put up with the occasional official share that gets overlooked, but this is taking it a few steps too far. |
| Jan78 05.02.2008 02:44 |
Agreed, Thunderbolt...but then you can also argue things into a way you want it to go (not you personally). How about we share a stolen product here...maybe even almost official. We cover it with "leaked" or "shared", but it's stolen property. Not public domain. I struggle to understand really, how this is hailed as the treasure of the year, whereas someone requesting maybe "Hijack My Heart" or "Stealin'" will be told off by probably the same people who celebrate the multitracks now, even if to him it might be an equally big treasure because he never heard it before (I felt that way in the days before mp3 and the internet). But well...just in this particular case I find it interesting how the Queenzone rules apply or actually don't. I don't want to start an argument, but I thought this is a case that is in the most simple sense of the word interesting. On some level it might be like "we as fans deserve having/owning/hearing those things". And on another level it may be "someone "leaked" a tape, which in fact means it was stolen from QPL, but because they (the band or Jim Beach or whoever) were withholding it from me, that thief is actually a hero"... |
| Penetration_Guru 05.02.2008 02:44 |
That is a good point - these are official (because they contain the guitars from the official release, th evocals, etc etc and the fact that OTHER stuff is also included is irrelevant) and my hypocrisy is acknowledged. Are we taking the links down then? |
| Jan78 05.02.2008 02:55 |
Guru, I did not request the links to be taken down. I have always supported sharing out of print material (and not in print material) simply from the perspective of "I'd like to support the band, and buying it would be good, but if they don't give me the chance to buy it, I might as well get it somewhere else." Is that in a sense stealing? I don't want to go on about consciousness and "sharing official material is theft". I have a sort of practical interest in this matter. A microscopic look at "why is this ok when that is not?". I am fine with keeping it on this level. Dr. May might of course see it rather differently. Did he ever mention "leaked" (read: stolen) demos like Robbery, Self Made Man or My Secret Fantasy in the Soapbox? I remember his rant about the Cozy Powell demo though... |
| thunderbolt 31742 05.02.2008 05:18 |
The difference between the KQ/BR multis and something like "Stealin'," "Hijack My Heart," or "Mad the Swine" is that there are several other websites out there--primarily "blogs" from South America--which post official albums in full. They also post all kinds of one-off demos, B-sides, 12" tracks, and the "Royal Rarities" collection, which is chock-full of official stuff. I have no problem saying to someone, "Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere for those," because five minutes of Googling would turn up one of those websites. As I recall, QZers were instrumental in shutting one or two particularly bad ones down last year, which has engendered a bit of good will from the powers that be over at QPL. Honestly, Jan78, while I don't see a need for us to preemptively remove the KQ and BR multitracks, I do think these will prove to be QZ's ultimate test in terms of what's "official," and what counts as a one-off studio demo. They really are the grayest of gray areas. I'm waiting for Dr. May to either express happiness that such important historical documents are being preserved in high quality, or (more likely) blow a gasket in his Soapbox over the fact that they leaked out. QPL has people who visit this site--they *have* to know by now. |
| cmsdrums 05.02.2008 08:37 |
I can see both sides of the argument her. The individual parts have never been released like this officially, and therefore, in line with existing QZ protocol, they are allowed. However, they are Queen tracks, recorded in the studio under licence to QPL and/or Trident or EMI etc.. are the copyright is owned by them and so is 'official' and shouldn't be shared. However, if we take the later argument, absolutely anything that Queen recorded in the studio is 'official', regardless of whether it has been released or not, and therefore all demos and rare unreleases session tracks should not be shared either as they are official. The normal argument against downloading official already released material (and my view) is that 'official' tracks already released should not be sharable as they are available commercially elsewhere, and therefore if these are shared rather than bought they could be taking money directly from the artist or record company. Fair enough. My view however is that tracks like these multitracks are never realistically going to be available commercially, and so regardless of how many of us here download them, we are not affecting any profits for anyone elsewhere. They should continue therefore to be avaialable because the argument given by record companies themselves (ie profit) is not in any way being affected. |
| Cwazy little thing 05.02.2008 09:16 |
I made very similar points to these a page or two into the Killer Queen 24 track thread, and I did wonder whether there would be any further discussion. The point I made before was about bootlegs of shows which have been officially released - Im talking audience recordings, or taped live off the TV type things, for example the tribute concert; The final product released officially was, firstly, not totally complete, and secondly, touched up to cover mistakes (an example Ive heard being Bri's solo on Stone Cold Crazy). Yet Im certain if you request a bootleg for these shows, for example to compare the differences between them and the released version, you'll be told since they were released officially, they cant be shared here. There is a fine line between that, and what we have here, yet these multitracks are not even questioned by those very same people drawing the line before the bootlegs- why? Rarity. Not many people have these, whereas thousands taped the tribute concert from the live broadcast. So yes, the rules have been bent if you ask me. Is it a bad thing? Maybe. That totally depends on your stance on copyright, and particularly the right of an artist to decide exactly what work they want to let the public see, and what they would prefer stays behing closed doors. The reason we havent heard these before is because Queen decided on the bits they liked, the mistakes they didnt, and edited the song accordingly - it was never intended for the fan to hear these, and Im an advocate of respecting the right of the author of copyrighted material to say no, I dont want anyone to hear that, cos its not good enough, or whatever. The fact is, we live in a world where people want things, and often dont care about what the band may or may not have wanted you to hear, because they'll take any little piece of Queen they can get - demand will always exceed available resources, because there was only so much the band could produce. I want it all, and I want it now indeed. Now, if the band were happy for this stuff to leak to the fans, and for us to privately enjoy it, so long as the finished products they released were selling well, then there would be no problem (morally at least). But if Brian doesnt like us having these, then it is wrong for us to have them, in my opinion at least. Theres a very complex argument here, and as was mentioned above, this is truly a grey area. Ultimately, I dont think we should have these files in the first place - it was theft of the highest order for someone to pinch them, but what to do now they are here? Leave them for now, and when, as I think is very likely, QZ is asked to remove them, so they will be removed! The fact is, Ive happily downloaded these, and listened with great interest, so it clearly didnt bother me that much, lol, but I suppose Queen have been tolerant of bootlegs in the past, so maybe, just maybe, Brian will see that as long as no one is making money from these, by remixing/sampling etc, then these are the sorts of things that fans find incredibly interesting and exciting, and it wont harm record sales. Very interesting thing to have a discussion about though. |
| brENsKi 05.02.2008 12:28 |
how about we delay making a definitive decision on what is official or not until AFTER the Queen II multitracks are released for download ;-) |
| Raf 05.02.2008 13:08 |
Maybe once Brian finds out that the tracks are here, we could point out to him that, as it's too late to prevent them from being heard by the public, he could take advantage of it and make a remix contest...? Peter Gabriel, Nine Inch Nails and several other artists have already made remix contests. |
| GiantSpider 05.02.2008 13:59 |
Its already been said here that if we towed the "it's owned by QP/EMI" line, nothing would ever get shared. If you think, the contents of all bootlegs are owned by the band and their associated labels. So, a pragmatic approach then. If someone wanted to download Killer Queen for example, we would send them to somewhere they could do it officially. If we uploaded it, they would be stealing money from the band, and we would be helping them. However these multi-tracks aren't "out" there, are Queen going to lose any money by them being on here? No. The only way they would would be if someone was to download the KQ multi-track as opposed to an .mp3 of it. 5mb or 500mb? |
| Jan78 05.02.2008 14:20 |
I think, live bootlegs feel different...I don't know why though. But as for demos and those multitracks...how about the thought that we are actually sharing a stolen product around? Would we all drive a car to feel what it's like if we knew it was stolen in the first place? |
| victor fleitas 05.02.2008 15:22 |
acctually, where I can download these multi-tracks? |
| Raf 05.02.2008 15:41 |
*edit: feeling slightly guilty* |
| Adam Baboolal 05.02.2008 16:12 |
Very muddied waters indeed. In the end, we have something that shouldn't be here or anywhere, but in the band's hands. I'll definitely think about removing the BoRhap links. Especially if Bri says something about it. I'm suddenly a little less comfortable with myself right now. Adam. |
| primavera 05.02.2008 16:32 |
Even though I found the tracks amazing it did feel going criminal to me. Such things are not distributed openly... so I'm wondering about the source of the leak. It's not about stealing money from the group, but more of a moral issue. I don't think anyone would love to have their raw material distributed in any way. I have downloaded the tracks and I am going to keep them but I'm not spreading the thing further... that's for sure |
| PieterMC 05.02.2008 16:34 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: In the end, we have something that shouldn't be here or anywhere, but in the band's hands.The same could be said for the demos that have been shared on here, and that are readily available on youtube. |
| mooghead 06.02.2008 01:58 |
Much as I love these multitracks I think if I was Brian, Roger or John I would feel like I was being arse raped. |
| john bodega 06.02.2008 02:38 |
I'm not guilty at all. I made multitracks of mine available once. There was one band that released a song or two of theirs as GARAGEBAND files for Christ's sake. Trust me, if anyone from QP is watching this, my official opinion is 'oh that's terrible, delete all the links at once'. But really, this is only a recording that's been gathering dust for 30+ years. Queen aren't doing anything with it anymore, and it'll be a cold day in hell before they start selling us anything this interesting. I for one am more than glad (and grateful) that this leaked. |
| thunderbolt 31742 06.02.2008 03:52 |
Zebonka12 wrote: But really, this is only a recording that's been gathering dust for 30+ years. Queen aren't doing anything with it anymore, and it'll be a cold day in hell before they start selling us anything this interesting. I for one am more than glad (and grateful) that this leaked.The well-known retard (who generally doesn't strike me as retarded at all) has a good point here. The argument that, I'm sure, will be made eventually is the "this is not the finished product--this is not what we wanted you to hear" line. While I honestly doubt that Freddie would have wanted the multitracks out there for all to hear--judging by his fiercely private nature--I don't see the harm in it either. If nothing else, the multitracks are an absolutely fascinating glimpse into the genesis of two incredible songs, and they've only deepened my appreciation for the two works. Now, the argument I *wish* QPL would make (and then follow through on) is "You can't share those multitracks, because later this year, we'll begin re-releasing all the original Queen studio albums in individual boxed sets with the multitracks on a separate CD." Ah, one can dream... |
| Wagimawr 06.02.2008 05:31 |
Honestly in this case I'd tell Brian to go get bent somewhere. It's not harming the band's profits at ALL unless you feel like diddling over copyright (and what victory is that, really? once it's out, it's out, it'll just be that much harder for people to find it). Furthermore, these tracks are HISTORICAL RECORD and if the band can't be arsed to put them out, that's not our problem. I'm sure my argument is leaking all over with legal and moral holes but I honestly don't see why it MATTERS. Besides, nobody but music nerds is going to really care about this stuff anyway, right? :D |
| Fenderek 06.02.2008 06:15 |
They could say they didn't want us to hear this "warts an'all" stuff... I'm obnly going to say one thing, even to Brian. It's been literally YERAS since I had goosbumps listening to Queen. When I heard Freddie's voice a capella in BoRhap (TRACK 15, if I remember well) I had so many shivers down my spice (pun intended)... even when his voice cracked once or twice (there was a moment like that)- it just made me REMEMBER what a vocal genius he was... Same goes for stripped of everything else guitar parts- holy mother of god... (and I don't think I'm christian ;) ); all it made me after all these years was to UNDERSTAND finally why I love them so much... If this is harm, dear QP, then... yeah, release GHIV, sequel to musical, some more bootlegs in shitty format and live DVD of a gig we already know (Rio anyone?)- THAT will make me UNDERSTAND why I fell in love in this band in the first place... |
| Cwazy little thing 06.02.2008 08:35 |
Fenderek wrote: They could say they didn't want us to hear this "warts an'all" stuff... I'm obnly going to say one thing, even to Brian. It's been literally YERAS since I had goosbumps listening to Queen. When I heard Freddie's voice a capella in BoRhap (TRACK 15, if I remember well) I had so many shivers down my spice (pun intended)... even when his voice cracked once or twice (there was a moment like that)- it just made me REMEMBER what a vocal genius he was... Same goes for stripped of everything else guitar parts- holy mother of god... (and I don't think I'm christian ;) ); all it made me after all these years was to UNDERSTAND finally why I love them so much... If this is harm, dear QP, then... yeah, release GHIV, sequel to musical, some more bootlegs in shitty format and live DVD of a gig we already know (Rio anyone?)- THAT will make me UNDERSTAND why I fell in love in this band in the first place...Cant argue with that - one reason everyone is so excited is the ability to isolate the vocals etc, and all of a sudden you've got Freddie Mercury singing in your bedroom. Its spine tingling stuff. |
| Erin 06.02.2008 11:02 |
Fenderek wrote: They could say they didn't want us to hear this "warts an'all" stuff... I'm obnly going to say one thing, even to Brian. It's been literally YERAS since I had goosbumps listening to Queen. When I heard Freddie's voice a capella in BoRhap (TRACK 15, if I remember well) I had so many shivers down my spice (pun intended)... even when his voice cracked once or twice (there was a moment like that)- it just made me REMEMBER what a vocal genius he was... Same goes for stripped of everything else guitar parts- holy mother of god... (and I don't think I'm christian ;) ); all it made me after all these years was to UNDERSTAND finally why I love them so much... If this is harm, dear QP, then... yeah, release GHIV, sequel to musical, some more bootlegs in shitty format and live DVD of a gig we already know (Rio anyone?)- THAT will make me UNDERSTAND why I fell in love in this band in the first place...Love this post, and I completely agree! :-) |
| boffy 07.02.2008 22:15 |
Fenderek wrote: They could say they didn't want us to hear this "warts an'all" stuff... I'm obnly going to say one thing, even to Brian. It's been literally YERAS since I had goosbumps listening to Queen. When I heard Freddie's voice a capella in BoRhap (TRACK 15, if I remember well) I had so many shivers down my spice (pun intended)... even when his voice cracked once or twice (there was a moment like that)- it just made me REMEMBER what a vocal genius he was... Same goes for stripped of everything else guitar parts- holy mother of god... (and I don't think I'm christian ;) ); all it made me after all these years was to UNDERSTAND finally why I love them so much... If this is harm, dear QP, then... yeah, release GHIV, sequel to musical, some more bootlegs in shitty format and live DVD of a gig we already know (Rio anyone?)- THAT will make me UNDERSTAND why I fell in love in this band in the first place...It's been seconded and thirded, so I'm fourthing this post, shivers and all. |
| Roger's Beard 08.02.2008 04:54 |
matt_jax wrote: Basically it is stolen, as is all leaked demos and also those Convention demos are very much stolen! Illegal recording is well stealing. I was going to DL, but i do not have a purpose to have these multitracks, they serve no purpose to me, but that is my issue.Matt_Jax. Do you also belong to the strange group of people who do NOT see the point in any of the 5.1 audios? Each to their own I suppose, but THE point of having the multitracks is so you can hear the work and the little intricacies in each individual instrument/vocal that you don't hear on the final mix. Imagine only having heard Bohemian Rhapsody in mono and then someone giving you the stereo mix to listen to. You hear so much more. This is the same. |
| Crazy LittleThing 08.02.2008 08:47 |
*raises hand, says: Shivers here too. Thanks PC--for the downloads AND for starting and inspiring some of the most interesting discussions on QZ in quite awhile. It's good to see so many friends posting among these threads. Cheers all . . . |
| boffy 08.02.2008 09:20 |
matt_jax wrote: Basically it is stolen, as is all leaked demos and also those Convention demos are very much stolen! Illegal recording is well stealing. I was going to DL, but i do not have a purpose to have these multitracks, they serve no purpose to me, but that is my issue.Yes, it is stolen and it is illegal. So are all of the video and audio bootlegs of all the concerts which haven't been released, or have only been partially released. The question is, is it wrong? Skip this long ramble if you want: That is a question of people's intentions. People obviously aren't downloading these to avoid buying a copy of Killer Queen or Bohemian Rhapsody. They almost certainly own it already, on at least one format. They want to gain a better understanding of how the song was put together by pulling it apart, or they want to remix it for their and the community's enjoyment. Although it feels different, I think the same argument stands in favour of this as of concert bootlegs: Officially-released live audio and video is edited for many reasons, while the bootleggers try to re-create the original concert as fully and as accurately as possible. Even if they contain large chunks which have been officially released, they're not a substitute for the official versions, they sit next to them on our big shelves of geekery. Just like the multi-tracks, they COULD be edited down to match the official version, but that would miss the point. I've gone on a bit here, and answered a few arguments which I don't think you were actually putting forward.In short, we're not going to buy any less from Queen Productions just because we have these. People profiteering off of these on eBay, etc., they are dogs with disease and should be cast into the seven seas of Rhye. People like poopchute, who are sharing these wonderful things with the community, they're the champions of the world. |
| John S Stuart 08.02.2008 12:20 |
For me the answers are simple. 1: If it takes bread from the mouth of the band – then yes; it is wrong - period. Brian and others physically lose monies from illegal 'Mad The Swine' or 'Hijack My Heart' downloads, and although I would love to pay him for ‘Robbery’, I cannot. Therefore, although I can agree with his grievance, I have not deprived him of any royalties because there is no financial avenue for me to do so. If on the other-hand, he decided to release ‘Robbery’ at a later stage, I would still buy the official version. Individually, these tracks do not take bread away from the band. 2: Are illegal downloads correct - even if I they do not physically steal from Brian’s mouth? Absolutely - if it leads to ‘Beatles Anthologies’. The real reason Roger released his solo albums on CD were that the bootleggers beat him to it. Once he saw that he was haemorrhaging cash via this illegal trade, he quickly remedied the situation by rush releasing official versions. If Brian were to officially release a 24 track DVD-audio, then again I would gladly re-purchase an album I have bought many times previously. 3: No one at Queenzone is actually guilty of theft. The worst done here is the file sharing of tracks which could just as easily be found from alternative sources such as e-bay. The real criminal activity lies with the person (or people) who initially stole the material. If there is a leak at EMI –it can only be an insider job. Based on my own stuff being stolen (NO: I am not harping on – but illustrating a point) I have my own suspicions. If that is the case, the answer is simple. Plug the leak, as that is where the real problem exists. If I were Brian, I would be more concerned about a breach of security than I would be about some kid downloading the master from Queenzone. However, I now think that we are into third or fourth generation sharing, so we have moved well beyond the point of a mere breach of security. Suddenly, it is increasingly looking like a case of having to lock the stable door – long after the horse has bolted, and I think deep down, Brian must know this. If all this makes me sound hypocritical or contradictive – so be it. |
| boffy 08.02.2008 14:17 |
matt_jax wrote: I understand that, i actually own a studio, so i know exactly what i am missing, but i am not at all interested in hearing this one, i have already heard enough througout the years of this damn song. lol. I am more into Rare demos and alternate takes.There are about 3 takes of the lead vocal in this 24-track, if that interests you. It can be difficult to express using only text, but I'm not being sarcastic, I just thought they might interest you. |
| paulosham 08.02.2008 18:49 |
Would a writer want readers to see early drafts of a story, or a film maker want you to see unfinished scenes of their film? No, of course they wouldn't. I'm sure that Queen do not want this stuff to be heard, yes, the fans want to hear it, it's in a fans nature to want to hear the rare stuff. Where does this kind of material get released? Nowhere! that's where. This kind of stuff gets stolen and leaked and even though the artists sometimes get on board with remix contests as has been previously stated, they don't really like this kind of thing getting out. I mean, would you? |
| Bobby_brown 08.02.2008 21:40 |
It´s bad that these things leaked out in the first place. But i don´t feel guilty at all by downloading it. First- i would never pay someone to leak something, because i think it´s a question of integrity. I would never lead someone violate the TRUST code. But, this is already on the Internet. So, the only think we can do is listen and enjoy. Why should we feel guilty? We have no direct action for this to be leaked in the first place, but we can enjoy the fact that it ended up here. Maybe they´ll get the idea that this could be an interesting product to consider. Creating an Audio File download on their website containing the 24 mustitrack. I would gladly pay for that kind of stuff! Take care |
| john bodega 08.02.2008 23:25 |
paulsmith2001 wrote: they don't really like this kind of thing getting out. I mean, would you?Again, you won't get the same answer from everyone. I personally love sharing old scripts from movies and isolated tracks from old songs... of course it doesn't happen often because not that many people ask!! But it's just how I feel... I don't mind, most of the time. The only times I keep candid stuff hidden is when I say something a bit... incriminating (like when I call someone I know a cocksucker or something). Judging by the years and years it's taking for unheard Queen stuff to come out, I'm going to guess that Brian's feelings on this are 'I don't want anyone to hear anything', and I can respect that. I don't agree, though. |
| brENsKi 09.02.2008 04:03 |
paulsmith2001 wrote: Would a writer want readers to see early drafts of a story, or a film maker want you to see unfinished scenes of their film? No, of course they wouldn't. I'm sure that Queen do not want this stuff to be heard, yes, the fans want to hear it, it's in a fans nature to want to hear the rare stuff. Where does this kind of material get released? Nowhere!i have to disagree with you. almost EVERY dvd released these days has "extras" on them. and those extras are usually made up of unfinished/deleted/reworked scenes....so the movie industry IS letting us have stuff that didn't make it to the finished cinema release...so why shouldn't the music industry? also - i don't think this "witholding gems" practice is not a music industry thing...many big bands have released box sets and collections of demos and outtakes etc....and if it's ok for the beatles then it's ok for queen...except it isn't..because i think our beloved Brian is a little too prissy about it |
| paulosham 10.02.2008 05:48 |
writers and film makers are not the INDUSTRY |
| paulosham 10.02.2008 05:50 |
and double negatives are not not a bad idea. |
| Adam Baboolal 10.02.2008 08:41 |
paulsmith2001 wrote: writers and film makers are not the INDUSTRYThat's a pretty funny comment in light of recent happenings. Sorry, but that's a bogus comment. They're the lifeblood of the industry. If writers going on strike stop major television shows in their tracks and actually end seasons before they're ready to end, I think that says a lot. Adam. |
| Negative Creep 10.02.2008 10:29 |
"Brian and others physically lose monies from illegal 'Mad The Swine' or 'Hijack My Heart' downloads". No - they're long out of print with no re-issue on the horizon. I'm also fairly sure the band aren't much arsed about out of print b-sides being available online as mp3s, but I'm more than sure they're furious that multitracks of commerically available tracks are being traded in 24 bit WAV files for any dimwit to create horrendous remixes of. |
| Adam Baboolal 10.02.2008 10:32 |
Negative Creep wrote: "Brian and others physically lose monies from illegal 'Mad The Swine' or 'Hijack My Heart' downloads". No - they're long out of print with no re-issue on the horizon. I'm also fairly sure the band aren't much arsed about out of print b-sides being available online as mp3s, but I'm more than sure they're furious that multitracks of commerically available tracks are being traded in 24 bit WAV files for any dimwit to create horrendous remixes of.Here, here. |
| John S Stuart 10.02.2008 11:03 |
Negative Creep wrote: ...I'm more than sure they're furious that multitracks of commerically available tracks are being traded in 24 bit WAV files for any dimwit to create horrendous remixes of.You miss my main point: These 'dimwits' are no more than 'bottom-feeders'. It's the guys at the top who are 'stealing' this stuff who are the real problem. It is they Brian should fear, not the small guy and his cheesey remix. In that sense I liken it to drugs. The 'real villians' are not a few college kids smoking a bit of blow. Indeed, in most cases, the police may turn a blind eye at the odd joint for personal use - because basically there is so much crime for them to cope with. Rather, the police concentrate their forces on the few guys at the top of the food chain. Make no mistake. This is NOT all that has been stolen. This is only the tip of the iceberg. One day soon, we may all be awoken by an avelanche of unreleased gems. The real key question is - who started it all? |
| write your letters in the sand 10.02.2008 13:18 |
Negative Creep wrote: " . . . furious that multitracks of commerically available tracks are being traded in 24 bit WAV files for any dimwit to create horrendous remixes of.*shudders at the prospect of a Bo Rhap/Who Let The Dogs Out dance mix. |
| username1 11.02.2008 11:56 |
write your letters in the sand wrote:THAT is my biggest fear. Seeing that gives me an upset stomach about the prospect of putting anymore of these multi-tracks out in public.Negative Creep wrote: " . . . furious that multitracks of commerically available tracks are being traded in 24 bit WAV files for any dimwit to create horrendous remixes of.*shudders at the prospect of a Bo Rhap/Who Let The Dogs Out dance mix. Lest there be any grey area.... its not right to do. Just because these mults haven't been "officially released" they have owners. The people who did the transfers become less trusted, even if it was transferred un-knowingly. Its wrong, but I still feel like they should be out there to hear.... |
| BRZ 11.02.2008 23:16 |
"The difference between the KQ/BR multis and something like "Stealin'," "Hijack My Heart," or "Mad the Swine" is that there are several other websites out there--primarily "blogs" from South America--which post official albums in full" Dear friends, salutations from Brazil ( South America ) My first post ever... Salutations to all Queen fans here and out there! Sorry my poor english in advanced. About that post above, no no, why all wrong things is " from or to South America? " Sorry my dear friend, but that is wrong, because the 24 track tape was stoled probably in UK ( first world ) and not in SA. I did the download of Bo Rhap multitrack files , im a simple sound engineer and after listen the rough tracks i did stay amazed. Im Queen´s fan for a long time, and after listen the rough tracks i did think what the Queen members thinking about the "incident" of have the multitrack tape digitalized and available in internet!! I can talk for myself, i will never share or trade the material to anyone, i sware. I hope each person which downloaded the " digitalized " material do the same! QPL need arrest the first thief which did stole the tape ( Probably an 24 tracks 2" tape ). That is the correct! Now the "morality" question about the tracks available in internet is another very hard question because each one have own opinion and etc... By the way, QPL recovery the stoled tape? I hope so because is historical tape. Thanks and sorry for long post. Peace. |
| thunderbolt 31742 12.02.2008 00:59 |
BRZ, I apologize if this does not translate well, but I will do my best to be understandable if this ends up going through Babelfish or another online translator. I was not saying that South Americans are the only thieves, nor was I even saying that South Americans were responsible for the leaking of the KQ/BR multis. I was only pointing out that there are several "blog" sites, all of them that I know of based in South America, that allow users to download entire Queen albums for free. That is the sort of thing that takes money out of the pockets of the band, not the leaking of two songs' masters. I meant no disrespect towards South America in my post, and I am sorry if it came across wrong. |
| write your letters in the sand 12.02.2008 01:09 |
BRZ: Welcome to Queenzone! :) |
| boffy 12.02.2008 10:04 |
BRZ wrote: By the way, QPL recovery the stoled tape? I hope so because is historical tape.Seeing as the tape has already been digitised for re-mastering, 5.1 surround mixes, etc., it's most likely that someone working somewhere like EMI copied these WAV files onto his own USB memory stick or similar. I'd imagine the original physical tapes are guarded more carefully than these WAV files, which may be on many computers around EMI and other places. If the original 2" tape had been stolen, this would be a very different matter, but I'd imagine something like that would have been in the news. Welcome to Queenzone, I hope you like it here :) |
| Fireplace 12.02.2008 16:35 |
I did warn poopchute (who was in blissful ignorance about who Jim Beach was, and maybe for the better...), but I am just too greedy to ignore these downloads. It's like walking along a beach and not peeking at the gorgeous topless woman walking toward you. Well...I can't. I am a musician and I would never ever want someone to have my multitracks, but this is so good it turns me into a downright hypocrite. After all the Britney/musical/5ive/Robbie-shit we finally get something that is simply and purely Queen again. I have never before felt respect towards a computer-file, but I treat these .wav's with reverence, because I know I'm not really supposed to have them while on the other hand they constitute a wish come true. If being a hypocrite and committing a criminal act is the price, I think I am prepared to pay. As a musician and music lover, even Brian should be able to understand that to some extent. |
| BRZ 13.02.2008 23:02 |
Thank you dear friends. Thunderbolt friend. It´s OK, i did read now a little better about your post in "that first context" and your point of view...OK and no hard feelings :-) write your letters on the sand THANK YOU, I´M VERY HAPPY. boffy, RIGHT after i answered Thunderbolt i did research about digitalization thing of the master...was in the Abbey Road studios, and after that, the CDs copies travelled to US to post production... BTW , the information i got was the 2" original master tape was "bakered" at 50 Celsius degrees to "clean" the tape iron oxid before digitalization in Nuendo with QP and Brian May´s studio engineer looking the process ! Thank you for your Welcome too my dear friend. Fireplace. Agreeded, but if i get the Queen In Rio re-edition DVD made by brazilian TV station of the 1981 Sao Paulo stadium Concert , the first person i will gave the bootleg will be Poopchute :-) Peace. |
| Bohardy 21.02.2008 06:50 |
It looks like Queen's lawyers have just started to move on this, as the vast majority of the multitrack uploads have now been removed from Mediafire, Megaupload etc, either by the hosting site or by the user themselves. I'm still surprised to see no mention of this from Brian though. Perhaps he doesn't want to feed the fire by making it known to thousands more fans that these multitracks are out there. |
| paulosham 21.02.2008 07:15 |
Zebonka12 wrote:You know I just found out that Brian Eno and David Byrne are allowing fans to remix a couple of trackspaulsmith2001 wrote: they don't really like this kind of thing getting out. I mean, would you?Again, you won't get the same answer from everyone. I personally love sharing old scripts from movies and isolated tracks from old songs... of course it doesn't happen often because not that many people ask!! But it's just how I feel... I don't mind, most of the time. The only times I keep candid stuff hidden is when I say something a bit... incriminating (like when I call someone I know a cocksucker or something). Judging by the years and years it's taking for unheard Queen stuff to come out, I'm going to guess that Brian's feelings on this are 'I don't want anyone to hear anything', and I can respect that. I don't agree, though. link so it looks like some musicians are getting into the spirit of things, my view has changed |
| Bohardy 21.02.2008 07:19 |
paulsmith2001 wrote:I think Peter Gabriel did/does the same.Zebonka12 wrote:You know I just found out that Brian Eno and David Byrne are allowing fans to remix a couple of tracks link so it looks like some musicians are getting into the spirit of things, my view has changedpaulsmith2001 wrote: they don't really like this kind of thing getting out. I mean, would you?Again, you won't get the same answer from everyone. I personally love sharing old scripts from movies and isolated tracks from old songs... of course it doesn't happen often because not that many people ask!! But it's just how I feel... I don't mind, most of the time. The only times I keep candid stuff hidden is when I say something a bit... incriminating (like when I call someone I know a cocksucker or something). Judging by the years and years it's taking for unheard Queen stuff to come out, I'm going to guess that Brian's feelings on this are 'I don't want anyone to hear anything', and I can respect that. I don't agree, though. Also, The Beastie Boys have a load of a capellas on their site for people to use in their own remixes etc. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.02.2008 08:38 |
I've just seen my BR links are not working anymore. This is due to a problem with their acceptable use policy. And after reading a little closer, it does include a blurb about another person's copyrighted work. Well, it was a good run, but I'm out now. I'll pass on the mantle of sharing to someone else. I think 2504 downloads is pretty good, but a bit too much to go unnoticed, huh?! Adam. |
| jpet 21.02.2008 09:34 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I've just seen my BR links are not working anymore. This is due to a problem with their acceptable use policy. And after reading a little closer, it does include a blurb about another person's copyrighted work. Well, it was a good run, but I'm out now. I'll pass on the mantle of sharing to someone else. I think 2504 downloads is pretty good, but a bit too much to go unnoticed, huh?! Adam.So then that one trouble maker was for real? i do not understand it had to go, why? |
| Fenderek 21.02.2008 10:11 |
I can't do anything as I'm always writing from work and my internet is down at the moment... but someone could upload those files as torrent onto thepiratebay.org and they'll be safely shared there for as long as people seed... |