coops 06.02.2008 11:17 |
After reading the very interesting thread on the legality of owning and distributing stolen material, I thought " how do people get this stuff in the first place"? I do not work in or around a recording studio, but I am sure that tapes are kept in environmentally controlled rooms under lock and key. Even digitized tracks must be treated like gold. Am I wrong? Is this stuff laying around on the canteen table? Of course not. Perhaps studios do not require a screening process for their staff, or precautions are not made when tapes/files are moved from one location to another. But it keeps happening. I am a huge Beatles fan and every year more and more great quality studio material makes it's way to my favorite Peruvian file distributer for only $2 per cd's worth. This stuff comes out of Abbey Road for Gods sake. They must have some kind of open door policy. Perhaps David Richards, Mack, and George Martin don't get paid enough and they leak the stuff out. Perhaps someone can give me some insight as to how this is seemingly so easy. |
john bodega 06.02.2008 12:29 |
Stolen is not the correct term (this is just what my gut tells me). Some clever sod did not take the original master tapes home with him for a sneaky conversion. Obviously, these .wav files were on a computer somewhere for a remastering in some past project (a Queen 5.1 DVD no doubt?) and someone rather slyly copied it when no one else was looking.... That's just my guess, but it doesn't sound too outlandish. Stranger things have happened; I heard someone was let into the morgue with John Lennon in it and was able to video-tape him. Could be nonsense, but the point is that we're being hypothetical! It 'could' happen. |
Sebastian 06.02.2008 12:50 |
coops wrote: Perhaps someone can give me some insight as to how this is seemingly so easy.Think about it: after 32 1/2 years a 'Bo Rhap' master-tape content surfaces. That's not "seemingly so easy", is it? |
onevsion 06.02.2008 12:59 |
according to Bob: "I've actually known about it for a couple years. Berkeley students used the KQ multi-track as a school project, and someone must have snagged a copy." from the topic in wich poochute shared the 24 track Killer Queen |
Bohardy 06.02.2008 13:01 |
But both Bob and Adam have mentioned people seemingly legitimately playing around with these masters, in public, professional environments. In Bob's case, students on some music course in Canada or the States, and in Adam's case, some guy who worked for Apple at some kind of audio expo (forgive me if the details are slightly wrong). I've no idea how these things work really, but I find it hard to believe that these masters would be aired so publically (in the aforementioned circumstances) if they were obtained by dodgy means. But equally, I find it very hard to imagine Jim Beach sanctioning the copying and loaning of these extremely valuable mastertapes. However, if that did happen, I think it much more likely that these leaked masters come from these sources, rather than through anyone directly connected to Queen and their associates. I really don't know either way. |
Micrówave 06.02.2008 14:40 |
I would think Producers and Engineers would make their own backup masters, which would essentially be masters. Ted Templemann always did. That's why I never believe an artist when they say they've lost the only master recording of something. |
Bobby_brown 06.02.2008 15:31 |
Micrówave wrote: I would think Producers and Engineers would make their own backup masters, which would essentially be masters. Ted Templemann always did. That's why I never believe an artist when they say they've lost the only master recording of something.Maybe Ted can release the Van Halen box by himself :-) Take care |
Adam Baboolal 06.02.2008 21:26 |
I just realised Bohardy was talking about me in his post. Well, I did find that there was a guy doing 5.1 demonstrations of Bohemian Rhapsody and Death On Two Legs. My theory would be that someone snagged a copy of the tracks when no-one was around. It's totally possible, isn't it? Adam. |
ezee 07.02.2008 02:22 |
The last decade has seen many artists Multitrack & 2 Track Masters transfered to one digital storage medium or another. Often several back-up or saftey copies are made. If a better digital storage medium becomes available with a higher resolution or what-not, the Masters may be transfered yet again. So now we have multiple Digital Copies of Original Masters easily accessible to f"the wrong kind of people" who happen to be "in the right place at the right time" so-to-speak. By the way, someone mentioned the "killer queen" multitrack earlier on in this thread.... quite stunning... really! e. |
ezee 07.02.2008 02:30 |
Hey "coops" i ment to address some of your concerns. <"I am sure that tapes are kept in environmentally controlled rooms under lock and key. Even digitized tracks must be treated like gold. Am I wrong? Is this stuff laying around on the canteen table? Of course not."> I do work in the industry... sadly its all pretty much there for the taking .. if yer in the right place at the right time! e. |
john bodega 07.02.2008 04:20 |
The real thing to remember here is that we should do whatever it takes to stop cunts making money from this kind of thing on eBay. Keep an eye open. Either these recordings are supressed from high up and no one gets them, or they should be as free to all as they were to us! (Noble face). |
Benn 07.02.2008 05:29 |
Zebonka12, re: >>The real thing to remember here is that we should do whatever it takes to stop cunts making money from this kind of thing on eBay. Keep an eye open. Why? What can you do other than not bid on them. If someone wants to offer up something like this, then let them. If people are stupid enough to bid on them, who are we to say what they should spend their money on? >>Either these recordings are supressed from high up and no one gets them It's tough to be able to supress something that's already leaked and floating around "on the market", but I do see your point. I've always been a subscriber to the conspiracy theory of management / band / producers / enngineers / private collectors actually allowing bits and pieces of rarities to escape from time to time, just for the simplicity of keeping interest and demand at a certain level amongst collectors. >>or they should be as free to all as they were to us! (Noble face). As much as you may want this, it's never going to happen. You get nothing for free - ever. And why should it? |
john bodega 07.02.2008 08:03 |
"Why? What can you do other than not bid on them. If someone wants to offer up something like this, then let them. If people are stupid enough to bid on them, who are we to say what they should spend their money on?" I guess my morals are skewiff, but I really don't have a problem with the handing around of rare material, unless money gets made from it. Charging for demos and bootlegs is just stupid, and more likely to piss off the high-up people. That's just my perception though, I guess whether it's free or not has little to do with anything... "As much as you may want this, it's never going to happen. You get nothing for free - ever. And why should it?" ... I got this 24 track for free!! Is that a philosophical statement about it always costing something for 'someone', or did you literally mean that I will never get anything for free? |
Benn 07.02.2008 09:32 |
Zebonka12, re: >I guess my morals are skewiff, but I really >don't have a problem with the handing around of >rare material, unless money gets made from it. >Charging for demos and bootlegs is just stupid, >and more likely to piss off the high-up people. Not at all. I'll pay for a bootleg if I believe it's worth the money. My freedom of choice allows me to make that decision on an informed basis given what I know about Queen and what is / isn't available. I would certainly have paid for a CD that contained the 24 individual tracks for Bohemian Rhapsody as I believe it to be THAT interesting and (not having heard the tracks yet) valuable. Less likely for Killer Queen given that I dont like the song; I'd have been driven by price on a CD boot of that one. The fact that people choose to make material like this available free is great and keeps that many more people happy, but I fully understand someone's need to charge for something if has cost them something in the first place. I certainly never expect anything to be made available for nothing. >... I got this 24 track for free!! >Is that a philosophical statement about it >always costing something for 'someone', or did >you literally mean that I will never get >anything for free? Literally. You didn't get the 24 track for free. You presumably turned your PC on and paid for the ISP, electricity, software and hardware to enable the download. Before that you turned the light on in your room. Before that you put the kettle on for a cup of tea etc etc. It costs you money to simply be awake. |
bigV 07.02.2008 09:40 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The real thing to remember here is that we should do whatever it takes to stop cunts making money from this kind of thing on eBay. Keep an eye open. Either these recordings are supressed from high up and no one gets them, or they should be as free to all as they were to us! (Noble face).I agree with everything you've said. Official stuff should be store-bought. Unofficial stuff should be shared and never, ever sold! Benn wrote: I've always been a subscriber to the conspiracy theory of management / band / producers / enngineers / private collectors actually allowing bits and pieces of rarities to escape from time to time, just for the simplicity of keeping interest and demand at a certain level amongst collectors.I know what you mean. I've always thought so too. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I've always had the feeling that the Freddie and Michael Jackson tracks were leaked by Greg Brooks or someone else high up when they couldn't get permission to include them in the Freddie Solo Collection. As a silent gesture of goodwill toward us fans. V. |
Raf 07.02.2008 10:55 |
bigV wrote:Well... Courtney Love was well pissed off at Dave Grohl when she noticed that the unreleased Kurt Cobain tracks she didn't want him to release were available for free on the internet...Benn wrote: I've always been a subscriber to the conspiracy theory of management / band / producers / enngineers / private collectors actually allowing bits and pieces of rarities to escape from time to time, just for the simplicity of keeping interest and demand at a certain level amongst collectors.I know what you mean. I've always thought so too. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I've always had the feeling that the Freddie and Michael Jackson tracks were leaked by Greg Brooks or someone else high up when they couldn't get permission to include them in the Freddie Solo Collection. As a silent gesture of goodwill toward us fans. V. Way to go, Dave! ;) |
brENsKi 08.02.2008 08:35 |
easy: 1. hire white van and buy overalls 2. phone EMI check GB is as lunch 3. enter EMI building, tell desk clerk you are here to collect confidential waste from QPL offices 4. enter archives, put anything labelled "multitracks" into a big white confidential waste sacks 5. leave building and ensure you sign out at desk 6. examine your heist and place on ebay |
Sebastian 08.02.2008 09:27 |
There's an easier form: 1. Wait for someone to upload multi-tracks 2. Download 3. Sell to naive victims |
Fenderek 08.02.2008 10:15 |
Brenski- I don't think they are in EMI building for some reason... ;) |
Benn 08.02.2008 10:43 |
BigV, re: >leaked by Greg Brooks or someone else high up when they couldn't get permission to include them in the Freddie Solo Collection. As a silent gesture of goodwill toward us fans. Don't be fooled by Greg - he's nothing more than a puppet whose strings are pulled by the organisation above him. Given his constant lack of ability to *get things right* and *theft* of other people's information, I don't believe for a second that he'd have the humility to appease collectors even if he was told to by higher powers. Greg likes the control he has over *us* to the extent he does and, in all honesty, who wouldn't? |
Erin 08.02.2008 11:13 |
Fenderek wrote: Brenski- I don't think they are in EMI building for some reason... ;)Damn...I'd already rented the white van and bought the overalls! |
brENsKi 09.02.2008 04:44 |
Erin wrote:don't worry - with a little teamwork we'll locate the tapes...ok, they may not be at EMI HQ, but they will be stored in a vault belonging to EMI or Queen somewhere - all we have to do is follow GB to work one dayFenderek wrote: Brenski- I don't think they are in EMI building for some reason... ;)Damn...I'd already rented the white van and bought the overalls! |
cmsdrums 09.02.2008 06:24 |
It has been intimated in replies about the leaking of master tapes that students in a music college were using copies of the masters for some coursework. Do we really honestly think that QP would ever think of allowing this to happen???!!!! |
brENsKi 09.02.2008 06:49 |
yes i do thinnk QP would allow it. think about it. Brian has already said it's his favourite guitar solo...just think how his inflated ego gets stroked by such requests...he'd be shooting his load just thinking about being asked |
Erin 09.02.2008 10:59 |
^^LOL |
Victorvil 11.02.2008 22:59 |
I think more 24 tracks are going to leak... in classic rock magazine - the edition with the 60th tribute to freddie - mike patton said that he has the ProTools Session of Bicycle Race... From Queencuttings.com link anyway, i love this 24 track recordings. It's a complete view of the work in the studio. Amazing |
Bohardy 18.02.2008 20:31 |
Just thought I'd add this, which may shed some light on how these masters came to be leaked: link In particular: "...they are pro tools dealer demo they gave them to us to show pro tools to clients (even mentionned not to solo lead vox on genie as its crappily autotuned) bob marley, aint no mountain, bohemian, genie, killer queen, all from the same demo pack tath was sent to digi dealers..." and "It's illegal because Digidesign and the publishers of the music have only granted permission to their dealers to use the tracks for the specific purpose of customers demo-ing Pro Tools. They almost surely haven't authorized online sharing or duplication of the sessions". So, if the above is to be believed, QPL/EMI have presumably licensed the use of some of these Queen multitracks to DigiDesign, the makers of ProTools, for the express purpose of showcasing famous multitracks within ProTools. Food for thought maybe. |
Penetration_Guru 19.02.2008 14:31 |
Jean Genie!!!!!!!! |
scallyuk 19.02.2008 16:35 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Jean Genie!!!!!!!!Nope - it's Christina Aguilera's Genie in A Bottle It was at link might still be there Pro tools format - rename the audio files to WAV N |
Penetration_Guru 19.02.2008 18:04 |
Pass, thanks. |
Adam Baboolal 19.02.2008 20:22 |
Bohardy wrote: Just thought I'd add this, which may shed some light on how these masters came to be leaked:..." "So, if the above is to be believed, QPL/EMI have presumably licensed the use of some of these Queen multitracks to DigiDesign, the makers of ProTools, for the express purpose of showcasing famous multitracks within ProTools. Food for thought maybe.Didn't I already basically say that with the whole demoing of tracks like BoRhap in 5.1 from a 24-track master in Pro Tools? Adam. |
Bohardy 19.02.2008 21:29 |
I think you did Adam, yes, basically. But this post seemed to offer just a little more insight into the whole situation. IIRC, your post mentioned somebody demoing some Queen multitracks, but it wasn't specific as to where these multitracks came from as such. It's evident now that - using KQ as an example - these multitracks have been around for as much as 2.5 years or more. So, for sure, many people will have been 'demoing' these masters in that time. But how many have been 'offically' demoing them... |