| Queen Archivist 27.04.2008 12:01 |
I have just been asked on another thread if it's ok for what I said at the UK convention a few weeks ago (the transcription of that), to be put up on site. The person informs me that what I said was recorded... !!!!! .... so then, no doubt the music was too. THAT WILL BE THE LAST TIME, I THINK YOU WILL FIND... YES "someone recorded what I said at the convention" even after I virtually BEGGED the people there for NO-ONE to record it. Brian was kind and generous enough to agree, Justin helped me sort thru it, and I asked extremely politely for NO-ONE to abuse the situation and record it. "Otherwise," I told them "Brian won't agree to this again and I won't be allowed to play such things for you guys again." That's fair, isn't it. We could not be fairer than that. What happens? Still some faceless selfish bugger abuses it. Some annoying deceiptful git records it ANYWAY - ignoring what I asked because it suits THEM, and everyone else can go to hell!!!!!!! I would prefer you DID NOT put it up onsite, please. I ask you politely. Again. In fact, why don't you tell me who it was that recorded my 'spot' on stage, and then I can write to them direct (as can you all) to thank them for fucking it all up for everyone else, AGAIN. This really annoys me. "Please DO NOT record this stuff" means exactly that. It's not ambiguous. There are some selfist tossers out there that always spoil it for everyone. If my comments were recorded, then so too was the music. Right????????? Who was that person? Please let me know (anonymously if you prefer), at... gb.queen_archive@btinternet.com How bloody irritating, again. |
| Queen Archivist 27.04.2008 12:04 |
Penetration_Guru has written this on a thread... I will post a transciption of what Greg said in the next couple of days GB... So, was it you PG???? If not, I'm guessing you would know who it was. I would genuinely appreciate you telling me - not least because this person has probably guaranteed that I won't be permitted to play any more rarities like that again. |
| Serry... 27.04.2008 12:18 |
What kind of title should we write in this case for not being blocked by your spam filter, Sir? |
| Fat Lizzy 27.04.2008 14:40 |
I think this is a sad topic and that you (Greg) and QP are a bunch of hoarders. |
| Fat Lizzy 27.04.2008 14:40 |
I think this is a sad topic and that you (Greg) and QP are a bunch of hoarders. |
| Roger's Beard 27.04.2008 15:18 |
Always wanting to give folks the benefit of the doubt, it IS possible that PG only recorded your talk and stopped his recording when you played the music. Even if he didn't, neither the talk or the music has appeared online and quite possibly never will. I think/hope that most people who attend your session aren't stupid enough to record it and share it and therefore risk never hearing anymore unreleased stuff again. If the songs appear online Greg, then by all means don't bring anymore to convention, if they don't then I think you're safe to keep bringing stuff, especially as hearing it is the highlight of convention and the main thing that's brought me back year after year to what has otherwise been a dull weekend. |
| Deacon Fan 27.04.2008 15:23 |
You certainly have the right to have your wishes respected, Greg. That being said, I wish Queen fans around the world could experience a 'virtual online convention' sometime. Not all of us live in the UK, or the Netherlands, or fucking Cleveland, yet our money is just as good for buying the endless rehashed releases QP decides to put out. And if you're gonna mix in your own lovely voice every 10 seconds reminding us who owns the music, why not put it online yourself? By the way, I would love to have an isolated version of your "Property of.." voice-over. It would be fun to add to other recordings :) But anyway, I myself was annoyed by P_G's statement. A "transcription"? LOL. Fucking post the audio I say! But I see your point too. Best of luck. |
| Erin 27.04.2008 16:20 |
You can't be that surprised that somebody recorded you, Greg. It was bound to happen, even if you begged people not to. Since you have "property of Queen Productions" mixed in, I don't see why this stuff can't be made available to everyone. Though, I realize this isn't your call to make. As Turkey Buzzard mentioned, it is a shame that those of us that can't attend a convention miss out. |
| john bodega 27.04.2008 16:37 |
It's nice to protect ones intellectual property, but you can't take it with you. In fifty years this shit won't matter. Why should it be such a drama? |
| FriedChicken 27.04.2008 16:45 |
I would understand the problem if the recordings of the music played at the convention were crystal clear recordings, with no audience chatting over it, or without Greg's voice every 20 seconds. Or without Greg stopping the tape and saying 'you get the idea, the rest is more or less the same'. But the recordings of previous conventions I heard contain all of these annoying things. Therefor I only listen to these convention recordings because I love Queens music and I like to hear something I haven't heard before. I guess the problem with QP is, that they're afraid that these recordings on the internet will kill the fans hunger for boxsets. I don't think this will be the case. Cause most of the people who will download these songs are the people who will buy the boxsets in the end. Even if it only contains stuff which has been heard at conventions over the years. The people who know Queen stuff from the radio aren't interested in the boxset at all. Boxsets with rarities are for the hardcore fans. And the hardcore fans are the people who buy it anyway. And... when the boxsets will be released. Will they have 'Property of QP' every 20 seconds. Cause you know... I'm 100% sure it will be online within 10 days after the release. If internet still excists by the time the boxsets are released of course |
| Penetration_Guru 27.04.2008 17:27 |
OK, I have some responses for you. - I have a terrible short term memory, but am fascinated by both the snippets that Greg is allowed to play and the information he is able to share. Thus I have recorded, FOR MY OWN USE, the last couple of convention discussions. NOT ONE SECOND of this has reached anyone else. - Greg's request was that the material was not to be found on the internet. I at no stage had any intention of ignoring this request. The existence of a recording should not in itself be a barrier to any future activity. - I was planning to type out what Greg had said, but it took ages just to get the first intro done, so I proposed that just his voice was shared. He is not happy with that - fair enough. I will not upload that anywhere either. - I'm fairly sure Brian's Montreux appearance had already been disseminated before Greg played it, but if any of the rest of the material played ever appears online, I'll be happy to send Greg the entire recording to prove that I am not the source (as it has a great deal of conversation from behind the bar). - It's probably not going to be considered relevant, but I've decided that was my last convention. Therefore you can be reassured that there will be no sneakiness at future conventions (except the hundreds of bootlegs, copyright-infringing photos, fridge magnets etc). Or at least anyone else recording it won't be honest enough to say so (I know you're going to hate that twisted logic - sorry). - In short, I don't accept becoming a scapegoat for this. If you were going to stop, you'd have done so the first time that "Property of Queen Productions" DIDN'T stop the uploading. To stop now because of material that HASN'T been uploaded would be perverse. |
| Champipple 27.04.2008 18:36 |
I think speaking at a convention you can expect not to have expectation of privacy. These days it's naive to expect to play ultra rare queen stuff in a public place and not expect it to be recorded and shared. You asked nicely. Someone decided to do it anyways. EVERY concert is now recorded by dozens of people and shared on the internet. As an example, on Backstreets you can download every Bruce Springsteen concert from his most recent tour. EVERY show. It's unfortunate in a way, but it's the new world we live in. |
| ok.computer 27.04.2008 20:35 |
Greg, I am in the unlikely position of agreeing with Zebonka here. Increasingly, the material that you are working on for Queen is becoming irrelevant. Where once I would have been the first to be crying "release the damn material", now, I have to say I really don't think we will ever see this material reach the light of day in a format that we really want, and when we want it. I only have 33 years left before retirement. Frankly, I think the serious collectors - and they do not number in the thousands any more, Greg - are the only ones interested. I think the more casual - but still reasonably serious - fans like myself are getting used to the annual disappointment of no boxsets. Before you rant about "well just how much control do you think I have over this material" - we realise that outside of archiving, you're pretty irrelevant to the Queen Machine. But perhaps, just once, you could feed back at a management meeting that time which will yield much, if any, commercial success for material that you are working on, is fast running out. *DO* hope that you otherwise enjoyed the convention, old boy... |
| Darren1977 28.04.2008 05:14 |
Greg, what is is the big deal with someone recording your voice. A lot of us did not have the opportunity to go to the convention and PG was just letting us hear your speech. Again on another thread here, another person has asked you quite simply any word on the box sets, nothing threatening or argumentative. As regards the NOTW robots if Sir Brian has one why didn't you simply photograph his one if you are great buddies and all. The No 1 Singles Collection is also on the back burner we assume. If only Mr. May and co. would announce at some stage what they intend doing with their catalogue then we would not need to bother yourself with these questions. Thank You |
| Winter Land Man 28.04.2008 05:20 |
Greg Brooks ate Treasure Moment's asshole out last night. |
| YourValentine 28.04.2008 07:41 |
I totally agree with you, ok computer. I am myself beyond caring about the box sets and I never thought this could happen. I think it's natural for a normal person to turn away from an old repetitive product and look for something exciting and new. In Germany they just released a "new" WWRY/WATC single, how thrilling. Also, I think if anything it's the leaked studio versions of unreleased stuff that might hurt the sales of the never appearing anthology, not some self recorded voiced over snippets taped in a noisy and crowded room on a convention. We all know it was not PG who leaked unreleased material from the archives, don't we, Greg? Anonymous whistle blowing about who leaked them is welcome at therewontbeaboxset@oldjoke.com Oh yes - Brian's Montreux 2001 appearance was partly on TV and complete on the Brian May endorsed sharing site owned by timelily |
| Fenderek 28.04.2008 08:34 |
I would understand this thread if those recordings of last covention were shared and uploaded onto internet. But they weren't... and saying that we won't have any more because... well... how do you know someone really RECORDED it? Anybody can say they did... I have a MAN IN THE SHADOWS LP... ;) So unless you hear this recording ANYWHERE on the net I think it's... ridiculous... Haven't heard them, not that crazy about hearing them... couldn't care less... waiting for box sets, in the meantime I listen to the bands that release interesting stuff NOW... come new Q+PR album or this "biggie" in the autumn- I'll listen to Queen again... but I'm not going to hunt down bad quality recordings of 2 minute snippets, with a "property of QP" every 15 seconds or so, with some idiots chatting over it (aren't they interested?)... I have life... Greg- do you seriously believe that those (especially those, that are NOT avaliable on internet or anywhere else) recordings pose ANY threat to anything? Please... |
| Micrówave 28.04.2008 11:02 |
I think it's pretty cut and dry.
Did the tickets say NO CAMERAS, NO RECORDERS, or some such? If they did, then P_G is a very, very bad boy and deserves a good spanking.
If they did not, would not the "people" at QPL have thought this through clearly? I think they do. Kinda like the Walmart logic - Don't go after shoplifters, just get them out of the store. I think QPL WANTED someone to record that and leak the snippets out on the net. To increase the hunger for the rare tracks.
So what are you going on about, Greg? Because you don't have the same forethought that the "people" at QPL have? Just like they'll allow you to play tapes next year. The only one that really cares is you.
You want a solution? Start your own website. Edit and post what YOU want.
YourValentine wrote: In Germany they just released a "new" WWRY/WATC single, how thrilling.Bragger. In the U.S. we got nothing!!! AND my toothbrush died. Perhaps THAT is the something special... |
| Yara 28.04.2008 11:38 |
I was really gripped by Queen while watching in VHS as a kid part of the concert held at Hammersmith Odeon, 1979. Up until then, I liked the band, period. After watching the concert, I became a fan and came to respect the band. Almost 20 years have gone by. If it were not for the painstaking and careful work done by bootlegers, collectors, tv and radio stations, I'd never have become a Queen fan, I think. Most of the really fascinating material available is the result of dedicated fans and collectors who really respect the band and its history. Just a thought. |
| Fenderek 28.04.2008 11:59 |
Would Greg be able to write QUEEN LIVE without bootlegs? Case dismissed... |
| The Real Wizard 28.04.2008 13:21 |
Fenderek wrote: Would Greg be able to write QUEEN LIVE without bootlegs? Case dismissed...What's a bootleg? |
| Yara 28.04.2008 13:31 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:The wooden leg of the good 'old Pirate in service of the Queen?Fenderek wrote: Would Greg be able to write QUEEN LIVE without bootlegs? Case dismissed...What's a bootleg? I think of these recordings that have been shared as admirable efforts by fans to register the band's history. If it were not for fans and collectors, I don't know... If it were not for fans, collectors and so on, I probably would never have become a Queen fan, and certainly would not have bought all the official studio releases. If it were not for Francis Dranke, afterall, Keynes argued, Shakespeare's plays could not have been afforded by the Crown. lol |
| Mr. Scully 29.04.2008 08:31 |
"Much Ado For Nothing"? Greg, what the hell do you expect? Respecting your polite requests? We've heard polite requests from the owners of concert venues for 30+ years - that we're not allowed to record or take photos. You know what - we DO that anyway. We record everything we can and we're proud of it. Brian May collects bootlegs, you collect bootlegs, you even wrote a book about bootlegs. And now you complain? And about those "demo tracks", most of which have been heard at about 5 conventions already and the recordings feature your voice and lots of chatting in the background... I'm THANKFUL to those who record them anyway. Because not all fans are members of some stupid fan club or not all fans want to travel 3000km and pay 300 GBP to see a fancy dress competition of some weirdos. (But I WOULD pay 300 GBP for a Queen Anthology btw.). We'll start respecting wishes of the band (or of you) when the band (or you) start respecting us, fans. As long as we keep getting re-releases, musicals, toothbrushes and ministatues, I say - FUCK IT. Long live the bootleggers! P.S. Maybe you should also finally tell us who broke the promise and spread the Queen demos in studio quality among fans back in 2001-2002? Because I don't think it was a theft and I don't think anybody else than you had access to this particular CD... |
| PieterMC 29.04.2008 09:06 |
Mr. Scully wrote: toothbrushesHey now. Don't go knockin' the toothbrush!! |
| john bodega 29.04.2008 09:41 |
ok.computer wrote: Greg, I am in the unlikely position of agreeing with Zebonka here.Come now, am I really all that disagreeable? ------ To the topic at hand, I'd like to basically say Mr. Scully hit the nail on the head. It's to be expected people will do what it takes to get their rare, unheard stuff, since it isn't available through official channels. It's a bit of a joke to get so uppity about audience recordings that have been going on for as long as the band has. If it weren't for naughty people and their cameras/etc... we wouldn't have a video of Knebworth. I think Queen Productions should be thanking people who record their little presentations. What if there was a big fire and all those rare recordings were lost? Better play it safe and release all that stuff ASAP. Too many eggs in too small a basket for too many years. |
| Micrówave 29.04.2008 11:08 |
Mr. Scully wrote: Maybe you should also finally tell us who broke the promise and spread the Queen demos in studio quality among fans back in 2001-2002? Because I don't think it was a theft and I don't think anybody else than you had access to this particular CD...I think this is a pretty fair question. |
| Benn 29.04.2008 12:31 |
It's funny, isn't it. All of a sudden Greg appears back here agin telling everyone off and at the same time banging on about what great work is being done in the background without ever really letting anything out of the bag. This happens time and time again. Greg, how do you account for all of the information in your "Queen Live" book if you didn't have access to well-known illegal recordings? Or is that all Ok because it was used for an officially sanctioned project? How do you account for the fact that the only way a numer of Queen fans have been turned on to them through the existance of recordings of live shows that are the ONLY real way to hear just how electric Queen were on stage? In so many ways, Queen are like The Who in that they were possibly a better live band than ANY of their albums displayed save for the odd exception. What's in your collection Greg? Official material such as the great "Rare Live" video. Or have you yourself made copies of the tapes you have been cataloguing over the years for your own personal delectation? And, in all honesty, who would blame you? QPL have presumably already assumed that you would indeed fo just that and are happy for you to do so on the understanding that they go absolutely no further. Anyone else would do EXACTLY the same thing, wouldn't they? At the end of the day Greg, wer're all bored by it all. I've spend the last 15-20 years anticipating what we might one day be treated to in a future archive set. When any newly discovered studio gem emerges, I'm all over it like a cheap suit but know full well the quality will (hopefully) be so much better when it finally sees the light of day officially. Unfortunately, anyone - like me - who really cared has gone past the point of being bothered by it all. If you're working on the box set, great. If not, well, that's great too. Queen's archive and history has been treated worse than any other band that I can think of. Look at some of the releases that have come out by other bands up there in the "great" category; all have rarities sets or studio re-releases chock full of previously unreleased material to keep the interest in their work alive. Nothing has been released under the Queen name that has any real rarity value since "Queen At The Beeb" (and if this is the surprise for the end of the year, please let's have the studio tracks, Bob Harris interview from '77, Radio 1 In Concert Golders Green '73, OGWT Hammy Odeon '75 all in one set). Please Greg, come up with something REAL. |
| Fat Lizzy 29.04.2008 13:09 |
Mr. Scully wrote: "Much Ado For Nothing"? Greg, what the hell do you expect? Respecting your polite requests? We've heard polite requests from the owners of concert venues for 30+ years - that we're not allowed to record or take photos. You know what - we DO that anyway. We record everything we can and we're proud of it. Brian May collects bootlegs, you collect bootlegs, you even wrote a book about bootlegs. And now you complain? And about those "demo tracks", most of which have been heard at about 5 conventions already and the recordings feature your voice and lots of chatting in the background... I'm THANKFUL to those who record them anyway. Because not all fans are members of some stupid fan club or not all fans want to travel 3000km and pay 300 GBP to see a fancy dress competition of some weirdos. (But I WOULD pay 300 GBP for a Queen Anthology btw.). We'll start respecting wishes of the band (or of you) when the band (or you) start respecting us, fans. As long as we keep getting re-releases, musicals, toothbrushes and ministatues, I say - FUCK IT. Long live the bootleggers! P.S. Maybe you should also finally tell us who broke the promise and spread the Queen demos in studio quality among fans back in 2001-2002? Because I don't think it was a theft and I don't think anybody else than you had access to this particular CD...I have nothing to add to this Martin, except saying that I completely agree! |
| Fenderek 29.04.2008 13:38 |
Benn wrote: Queen's archive and history has been treated worse than any other band that I can think of. Look at some of the releases that have come out by other bands up there in the "great" category; all have rarities sets or studio re-releases chock full of previously unreleased material to keep the interest in their work alive.I second that. I wish I could disagree with it, but I simply can't... |
| Marknow 29.04.2008 14:16 |
Thank god Grand Theft Auto 4 came out today. |
| Mr. Scully 29.04.2008 14:16 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Mr. Scully hit the nail on the head.Yep but it's a shame my English is fucking poor because before I translate my thoughts into English, I forget what I wanted to say. |
| pittrek 29.04.2008 15:29 |
Mr. Scully wrote:Some of us understand you perfectly :-) And also agreeZebonka12 wrote: Mr. Scully hit the nail on the head.Yep but it's a shame my English is fucking poor because before I translate my thoughts into English, I forget what I wanted to say. |
| cmsdrums 29.04.2008 15:57 |
Benn wrote: Queen's archive and history has been treated worse than any other band that I can think of. Look at some of the releases that have come out by other bands up there in the "great" category;And even a good number of bands that could barely be described as mediocre and unimportant have better archive and box set releases than we've ever seen from Queen! |
| Major Tom 29.04.2008 17:59 |
Serious discussion, yeah right. Seems like every single thread on this forum has pepole throwing shit at eachother. Why don´t we just forget about the very thing that brought us here, Queen, and make this a "mock everyone out there" forum? |
| Yara 29.04.2008 18:22 |
I thought many contributions were helpful. As for the mocking, well, I didn't engage in it. That's what I wrote, and it's the simple truth, whether the creator of the thread like it or not: Me: "I was really gripped by Queen while watching in VHS as a kid part of the concert held at Hammersmith Odeon, 1979. Up until then, I liked the band, period. After watching the concert, I became a fan and came to respect the band. Almost 20 years have gone by. If it were not for the painstaking and careful work done by bootlegers, collectors, tv and radio stations, I'd never have become a Queen fan, I think. Most of the really fascinating material available is the result of dedicated fans and collectors who really respect the band and its history. Just a thought." I couldn't find any mockery that, it's just a simple statement. Once the thread was created, I felt I could share my own experience without mocking anyone. My harsh comments belong to another threat, and I don't regret having made them - it was not mockery. It was a critique. And critiques, I think, are not the same as mockery. No one, in fact, is beyond them, and the topic is relevant for people like myself who have been gripped by Queen, and bought Queen's official releases, after watching and listening the material collected and preserved by fans and so on. In fact, the concert I'm talking about, which is one of Queen's greatest statements as a band, in my humble opinion, and the greatest with regards to Freddie - it's a singing lesson, really - was broadcast 30 - not 20, I was wrong! - years ago. It was, indeed, just a thought. I'm not asking for the concert to be finally released because, well, there'd be no point in doing so anymore, I guess, but there is other stuff which deserves a better treatment. The band's history deserves a better treatment, I think. But, again, it's just my opinion and, if people want to take it personally, they're free to do it, I have no control over how people react to thoughts, ideas or even critiques. Take care! |
| AlexRocks 29.04.2008 19:18 |
You all are out of touch with the way the music industry work. As far as I am concerned Queen are as great as Led Zeppelin and Michael Jackson and VERY little has been released from their archives. So LAY off as the greats have barely touched their archives as well. PLUS there is always the issure of finding new things along the way so that whatever releases are done will be as proper as possible by giving more time before they are released. You all are ready and willing to lead Queen and Mr. Brooks off to the gallows I'm sure as soon as some release or releases are done no matter what they are because they will NEVER live up to some people's expectations. There is a strategic way to release things and the last thing you all are in are in the know. Queen aren't about to commit suicide just to satisfy some of you who are about to die for whatever reason. Sorry. It is because they are mean. Aren't they? |
| Bobby_brown 29.04.2008 20:00 |
I understand Greg, because he´s following the rules of his company. If you read is post, it´s not him who refuses to do it, it´s Brian. Having said this, i think that Brian and Jim - i don´t believe Roger even thinks about tis - are living in the past. I´m 30 years now, and as time goes by, the less interested i am in Queen activity. We are now in the Internet days, and still i don´t see Queen take full advantage of it. We´re in a time where Radiohead simply shared their new album "Rainbows" and the person who downloaded it would only paid what they could afford for it(or what they think the value was). This is not meant for Greg, but Queenproductions are old fashioned, and i think it´s time to wake up! well, they can do whathever they want really, but people are loosing interest in them. I am HUGE fan of Queen, but i really don´t care anymore if they want to release the box sets or not. It seems like everything is a secret- it seems queen have a relation of "cold war" with their fans. -Every opinion guiven by real fans on the internet were discarded by QP. This is unthinkable! There are companies wich pay millions of dollars on surveys to release products, and this guys at QP have yeat to take the fans opinion in consideration- for free! -To guive away "Say it´s not true" for free only for selling it afterwards and guive the money to charity i thought it was a joke- and a bad joke! They´re just clueless! There´s too much things to be said, but why bother? - They think they´re on the right direction. God Bless´em! Take care |
| Erin 29.04.2008 21:40 |
AlexRocks wrote: Queen aren't about to commit suicide just to satisfy some of you who are about to die for whatever reason. Sorry. It is because they are mean. Aren't they?Huh? |
| AlexRocks 29.04.2008 21:58 |
I meant that comment in a business way for Queen Erin. Sorry. It's just the internet. Ahem. Anyway! Again I think some people are waiting until an appropriate time before certain things are released. From my understanding the Radiohead free give away did not go over as well as everyone trys to claim. Ask Gene Simmons from the mighty KISS. He made the great point himself. NO ONE who is sane opens up a store and says, "Hey just pay whatever you want for the products here!" I don't think that is too difficult to understand. Yes there are changes in the music industry BUT it is not all black and white there are still things from the past that ring true. Frankly I think that there are more things from the past that ring true than certain things going on with the internet which is seems unpredictable at best other than guarenteeing your product (the music) gets stolen with it. Seems like a good reason to not release ANY product but let's not make too much of a point of that huh? |
| john bodega 29.04.2008 23:20 |
AlexRocks wrote: As far as I am concerned Queen are as great as Led Zeppelin and Michael Jackson and VERY little has been released from their archives.Not that I'm qualified to comment on Michael Jackson, but this is a poor example. 'VERY little' might be appropriate when examining just how much stuff might be locked up in the Led Zeppelin vault, but comparitively speaking - at least they've released something. That live DVD set (the one with the desert on the cover) is great. Just one of those for Queen's 70's shows would suit me fine. The other bands might have released comparitively little, but they're still doing miles better than Queen, and two wrongs sure as shit don't make a right. |
| john bodega 29.04.2008 23:22 |
henke1980 wrote: Serious discussion, yeah right. Seems like every single thread on this forum has pepole throwing shit at eachother.You've got it all worked out. No one can give an honest opinion on your post without sounding like they're name-calling, thus 'proving' your very flimsy point. Kudos. You might take a minute to realise that you weren't contributing much of anything to anyone with this ridiculous post. We were getting along just fine without you; some of us even making some comments that were appropriate to the discussion! PS. Forum suggestions should go in the correct forum: link Here you go. |
| Tero 29.04.2008 23:56 |
AlexRocks wrote: As far as I am concerned Queen are as great as Led Zeppelin and Michael Jackson and VERY little has been released from their archives.I'm guessing you haven't heard of the early 2000 re-issues of the MJ albums? The ones where first studio albums were padded with about four demos each? Or the 4cd+dvd boxset spanning his entire career, which included another 10 demos, b-sides, soundtrack rarities, and a previously unreleased concert video...? Alex dear, if you compare the lack of Queen products to other artists, please try to find an artist who has made LESS of an effort. AlexRocks wrote: There is a strategic way to release things and the last thing you all are in are in the know.Yeah, and then there's the piss-poor, rip-off-way to release things which Queen excels in. |
| Serry... 30.04.2008 00:30 |
I want to finish collection of promo videos, just gimme GVH3. Fuck the boxset, fuck the Budapest DVD, fuck the merchandise book, fuck the crappy musicals. Is it possible to complete at least one project? First E.P., first videosingle, first this, first that, but nothing second... |
| john bodega 30.04.2008 03:48 |
Serry... wrote: I want to finish collection of promo videos, just gimme GVH3. Fuck the boxset, fuck the Budapest DVD, fuck the merchandise book, fuck the crappy musicals. Is it possible to complete at least one project? First E.P., first videosingle, first this, first that, but nothing second... |
| Queen Archivist 30.04.2008 08:36 |
To Mr Scully... I (GB) offer these comments... I'll spell it out for you Scully, as you are clearly, deliberately as far as I can see, IGNORING the obvious discourtesies within this situation. You ALWAYS do this, instead of saying "Fair comment Greg." God forbid you should be seen by your QZ playmates as ever agreeing with GB!!!!!!!! My comments are in CAP LETTERS after Scully's... "Much Ado For Nothing"? Greg, what the hell do you expect? Respecting your polite requests? We've heard polite requests from the owners of concert venues for 30+ years - that we're not allowed to record or take photos. You know what - we DO that anyway. We record everything we can and we're proud of it. we DO that anyway. We record everything we can and we're proud of it. YES. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR PEOPLE'S WISHES. IF YOU THINK THAT'S TO BE PROUD OF, IT SAYS MUCH ABOUT YOU. WHEN A PERSON TOTALLY DISREGARDS THE WISHES OF OTHERS (USUALLY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN, WITH BOOTLEGS) IT ONLY SHOWS THEM AS A NASTY, SELFISH PERSON. THERE ARE NO CHARMING ENDEARING ELEMENTS IN THIS, SCULLY. YOU MAKE YOURSELF SOUND LIKE SOME KIND OF HERO FIGURE. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT BRIAN OR ROGER WOULD SAY TO YOU IF YOU SAID SUCH A THING TO THEM IN ALL SERIOUSNESS.... "Well Brian May, and you too Roger, we're not allowed to record or take photos. You know what - we DO that anyway. We record everything we can and we're proud of it." You sound like a total bloody moron. MR SCULY. THIS HONESTLY IS VERY VERY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. JUST ADMIT IT INSTEAD OF FIGHTING ME JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT AND BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU MORE POPULAR ON QZ, THAN IF YOU ARE SEEN TO BE AGREEING WITH ME.... I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU. BRIAN KINDLY AGREED TO LET ME PLAY HIS RARITIES. HE DID NOT WANT THEM RECORDED, BOOTLEGGED, ABUSED. FAIR ENOUGH, ISN'T IT, BECAUSE AFTER ALL IT'S HIS WORK AND HIS PROPERTY, AND ALL I WAS DOING (FOR FANS' BENEFIT) WAS 'BORROWING' THAT MUSIC SO PEOPLE LIKE YOU COULD HEAR IT. I ASKED THAT NO-ONE RECORD THE MUSIC. IN FACT I ASKED SEVERAL TIMES THAT NO-ONE RECORD ANY PART OF THE 'SESSION'. SO CLEARLY THAT INCLUDES MY EXPLANATIONS TOO. I ASKED THAT PEOPLE RESPECT THIS SINGLE REQUEST. I ASKED THAT PEOPLE RESPECT BRIAN'S REQUEST. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT, SCULLY???? CAN YOU ACCEPT THAT IT WAS A WISH THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESPECTED, NOT IGNORED AND ABUSED??? SO HERE YOU ARE NOW SAYING THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER. THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU. IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME HERE ON QZ... PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE THINGS LIKE THIS EXPLAINED TO THEM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITHIN THEM TO BE AWARE OF IT NATURALLY. SCULLY, NO DOUBT YOU LIKE PEOPLE TO RESPECT YOUR WISHES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SHARE INFO. WHEN THAT IS ABUSED YOU PROBABLY GET RIGHTLY AND JUSTLY UPSET TOO. I HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN YOU COMPLAINING ENOUGH ABOUT THESE THINGS. YOU HAVE A SHORT MEMORY SCULLY. OK FOR YOU GET PISSED OFF ABOUT DISCOURTESY AND BEING ABUSED.... BUT THEN IN THE NEXT MONTH YOU SAYING SUCH THINGS ARE GREAT AND FINE, AND THAT YOU'RE PROUD OF IT. YOU ARE A HYPOCRIT. THINK ABOUT THIS, SCULLY. STOP ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF IT AND SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, WHEN YOU GET ABUSED ON YOUR SITE, AND THEN REALISE WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN HERE! NOW... BEFORE YOU START CITING ALL THE INSTANCES WHEREBY YOU AND YOUR TRUST HAS BEEN ABUSED.... I'M NOT INTERESTED. ALL I WANT YOU TO DO IS UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT THAT ANYONE WHO RECORDED THAT SESSION, ABUSING AND DISRESPECTING WHAT I CLEARLY ASKED (ON BM'S BEHALF) IS IN BREACH OF THAT TRUST AND HAS FUCKED IT UP FOR EVERYONE ELSE.... DESPITE ME MAKING THAT VERY THING VERY CLEAR. DO YOU SEE THE POINT SCULLY?? ARE YOU STILL GONNA SAY THAT IT'S OK TO DISRESPECT PEOPLE LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THATS THE WAY AND THE NATURE OF BOOTLEGGING???? |
| Queen Archivist 30.04.2008 08:37 |
continued... Brian May collects bootlegs NO SCULLY. HE DOES NOT. HE HAS ABOUT 40 THAT HE'S BEEN GIVEN OVER THE YEARS, OR WHICH CAME WHEN HE BOUGHT UP A COLLECTION A FEW YEARS AGO. GENERALLY SPEAKING BOOTLEGS HOLD NO INTEREST FOR BM - AS YOU WILL SEE WHEN WE ONLY FEATURE 8 OR 9 (AS TYPICAL EXAMPLES) IN THE BOOK WE'RE DOING, WHILE THE REMAINING 320 PAGES ARE OF 'PROPER' COLLECTIBLES. HE IS INTERESTED IN THE 'REAL' RECORDINGS, OF COURSE. HE HATES THE POOR SOUND QUALITY OF BOOTLEGS. SO, YOU'RE WRONG. HE DOESN'T COLLECT THEM. you collect bootlegs WRONG AGAIN. I DON'T COLLECT THEM. I TOO HAVE ABOUT 30 CD'S I'VE BEEN SENT. BUT I ACTUALLY SOLD ALL MY BOOT CASSETTES AND LPS 10-12 YEARS AGO BECAUSE I HATED THE SOUND OF THEM. I HAVE KEPT THE GREAT SOUNDING ONES ONLY, FOR GOOD REASON. BUT I DON'T COLLECT BOOTLEGS AT ALL. I DO NOT EVEN COLLECT OFFICIAL CD'S, LPS, SINGLES. I COLLECT BOOKS AND MAGS, BADGES, PATCHES, SCARVES, BANNERS. AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG. YOU ARE RATHER ARROGANT MR SCULLY, TO CONCLUDE THESE THINGS ON OUR BEHALF, AS IF YOU KNOW IT ALL. CLEARLY YOU DO NOT. , you even wrote a book about bootlegs. NO. I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT QUEEN IN CONCERT. THERE IS A SECTION ON BOOTLEGS WITHIN THE BOOK, YES, BUT THE BOOK IS ABOUT LIVE PERFORMANCES - HENCE ITS TITLE. NO PUBLISHER IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER PUBLISH A BOOK ON QUEEN BOOTLEGS. YOU ARE WRONG THERE TOO. AGAIN. BOOTLEGS WERE VERY USEFUL TO ME IN MY RESEARCH, OF COURSE. BUT THAT BOOK WAS WRITTEN USING THE INFO CONTAINED WITHIN OVER 2,000 LETTERS I RECEIVED FROM FANS BETWEEN 1976 AND 1993, PLUS QFC MAGS, AND CHATS WITH JIM JENKINS AND OTHER FANS/FRIENDS. BEFORE THE INTERNET EXISTED. And now you complain? YOU MISS THE ENTIRE POINT. I WAS COMPLAINING ONLY THAT SOMEONE RECORDED THE SESSION DESPITE OUR EXPLICIT REQUESTS NOT TOO. BECAUSE, IF THEY DID RECORD IT, IT WOULD MEAN I CANNOT PLAY BM SOLO RARITIES AGAIN. THEY DID IT ANYWAY, BECAUSE THEY ARE SELFISH BASTARDS WHO THINK OF THEMSELVES ONLY, INSTEAD OF QUEEN FANS AS A WHOLE. AND THEY SHOW NO RESPECT TO BRIAN AND HIS GENEROSITY. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS MR SCULLY? GO ON, ARGUE WITH THAT TOO. CAN YOU SEE WHY I COMPLAINED??????????????????? WITHOUT ARGUING OVER SOMETHING THAT SO CLEARLY WAS A BREACH OF TRUST AND WHICH WAS DISRESPECTFUL AND SELFISH, CAN YOU SEE WHY I 'COMPLAIN' ABOUT SUCH SNEAKY SELFISH INDIVIDUALS?????????? FORGET ABOUT GOING AGAINST THE CURRENT OF QZ POPULARITY, JUST SAY THAT AGREE WITH ME, IF YOU AGREE WITH ME. STOP BEING SO BLATANTLY BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS WRONGS YOU SURELY MUST SEE IN THIS. We'll start respecting wishes of the band (or of you) when the band (or you) start respecting us, fans. As long as we keep getting re-releases, musicals, toothbrushes and ministatues, I say - FUCK IT. Long live the bootleggers! THIS JUST SHOWS YOU TO BE A PETULENT, CHILDISH, PERSON WITH A BIT OF A CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER THAT YOU GENERALLY SHOW OFF FROM TIME TO TIME. THESE THINGS YOU POINT OUT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED AT ME. ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL I'M DOING IS AIRING A COMPLETELY VALID AND JUSTIFIED GRIEVANCE TO DO WITH SELFISH BASTARDS OUT THERE. P.S. Maybe you should also finally tell us who broke the promise and spread the Queen demos in studio quality among fans back in 2001-2002? Because I don't think it was a theft and I don't think anybody else than you had access to this particular CD... YOU ARE TREADING ON THIN ICE WITH COMMENTS LIKE THIS. YOU HAVE SHOWN YOU HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REAL SITUATION. YOU ONLY IMAGINE CERTAIN SCENARIOS IN YOUR MIND AND THEN TWIST THE FACTS TO SUIT WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT. YOUR ENTIRE TONE "I HATE HIM AND THEM AND ALL THEY DO, AND HERE AGAIN IS ANOTHER CHANCE FOR ME TO STAMP MY FEET AND DISPLAY HOW MUCH I KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING" BUT ACTUALLY, AS I PROVED, YOU KNOW LITTLE ABOUT WHAT GOES ON BEHIND THE SCENES. BRIAN DOESN'T COLLECT BOOTLEGS. I DO NOT COLLECT BOOTLEGS. MY BOOK IS NOT ABOUT QUEEN BOOTLEGS, IT'S ABOUT |
| PieterMC 30.04.2008 09:02 |
Queen Archivist wrote: BUT I ACTUALLY SOLD ALL MY BOOT CASSETTES AND LPS 10-12 YEARS AGO BECAUSE I HATED THE SOUND OF THEM.You should have just given them away. |
| Tero 30.04.2008 09:37 |
PieterMC wrote:I can sort of understand the reasoning in selling them... The original "publisher" has already gotten his profit from them, and isn't getting a penny more. Ideally of course you would give them away for free, but if anybody wants to give a small sum for passing them on, that sounds reasonable.Queen Archivist wrote: BUT I ACTUALLY SOLD ALL MY BOOT CASSETTES AND LPS 10-12 YEARS AGO BECAUSE I HATED THE SOUND OF THEM.You should have just given them away. What I find more questionable, however is the reason WHY he's sold them. For starters he says he's sold the lps and cassettes, and there's not a word about the cds! Also there's the small fact that right about that time he became the archivist of the band with access to their material... It's easy to give up on the bootleg releases if you have access to better sources. ;) I've also sold all my bootleg releases (not just Queen), and I got back about half of what I paid for them. If somebody wants to pay for them, that's fine by me. What made me sell all of them (lps as well as cds!) wasn't the crappy sound quality, or being able to get them as official releases. It was the fact that my morals wouldn't allow me to have "stolen property" on my shelf anymore, from which the artist hadn't received a single penny. |
| Mr. Scully 30.04.2008 09:46 |
Greg: 1. I do it for my popularity on QueenZone? Certainly not :) You know, this forum is not what it used to be and if it wasn't for the tour, I wouldn't be here at all. I also (just like you) got tired by all those arguments. 2. The person who recorded the tracks (IF!!! he actually recorded them) hasn't promised you anything. You said "please don't record this", he didn't respect that. I don't see anything bad about that. As I said, such requests are part of rules of any concert venue and yet everybody ignores them. And if Brian decides "next time there will be no rarities played at the Convention", fine, it's his decision and we will cope with that. 3. OK, Brian May doesn't collect bootlegs, my mistake. Funny that you sold your bootlegs, I've always thought selling bootlegs is illegal. 4. I'm not arrogant, Greg, despite what some people think :-) My English is not that good so I just try to speak briefly and to get quickly to the gist. 5. Generosity??? Is it such a generosity that a few privileged people can hear a couple demos ONCE? What's the point? I don't pretend I'm listening to demos every day but hearing something ONCE is completely useless. Greg, I DO understand why you're angry. But if you don't understand OUR point... if you don't understand why we record these demo sessions or live gigs, then you're not one of us, you're not a fan, just an employee of Queen Productions. P.S. I definitely don't hate you (how could I? We don't know each other) and of course I know what your job does or doesn't include. The last paragraph in my original post was not aimed against you, it was just a general complaint. (So... who spread the demos in 2001? I definitely didn't want to suggest it was you - but at least you must know who did) |
| Queen Archivist 30.04.2008 11:14 |
I'm not angry Scully. I just get pissed off with your so casual attitude that what happened at the convention is totally OK, and even that you are PROUD of that type of conduct. However you dress it up, being disrespectful and showing BAD manners, Scully, is never anything to be proud of. You did not reply to ANY of the things i Said that were correct and which made you uncomfortable. You just ignored them, I suppose because they are points that are hard to argue with. They are common sense. Further, you did not, as usual, agree with me that bad manners and being selfish is NOT acceptable. Where do you, Scully, draw the line as to what IS and IS NOT respectful, polite, courteous? I said that you ALWAYS regard being seen on QZ as agreeing with me. And that is true. You worry more about that than you do about the facts. I'm not being nasty Scully, but you say you are a person that thinks the disrespect shown to me and Brian's material, etc, is totally fine. Well, it IS NOT. Disrespect is NEVER to be seen as OK, or "part of the rules" as you put it. That is partly why this world is in such a mess right now - so many people thinking that such things are OK, and part of the rules. Whether it's bootlegging, or anything else in this world, Scully, being discourteous and rude and selfish IS NOT part of the rules, is NOT OK. Me calling you arrogant has NOTHING to do with your English - which is actually BRILLIANT. I wish I spoke any other language as well as you speak/write English. It is excellent. I called you arrogant because you presume to know all about my collection, and what Brian collects, etc, but you don't. To presume things that you know little about (things that happen in private) IS your arrogance. NOTHING to do with your great English so don't try to wriggle out of it that way. It's too transparent. I cannot believe that you, and others like you, think it's just FINE and "part of the rules" to steal a recording of a concert that you attend. It's crazy. Yes, i listen to bootlegs, of course I do, but I STILL recognise that it's NOT right, that it is stealing, and that its NOT part of the rules. I would never condone that or say its OK. It ISN'T ok. I said that in the book too. You know deep in your heart (never mind the pure legal aspect) that what I'm saying is correct. You also think that you have a right to poke cameras at people and take their photo!!!!!! Crazy. You wouldn't feel that way if it was you, and other rude discourteous people thought it was part of the rules to take photos of you or your family if you DID NOT want them too, or steal a recording of a party you invited them to. You have a very weird idea of respect Scully, and of what is normal and part of the accepted rules. That is because YOU are never the victim of these situations. It is NOT your show people are stealing. It is NOT your wishes they ignore. It is NOT you they abuse. You need to try to see the other side, but you are so deeply rooted now in your automated response to the subject of Bootlegging. You reply the same way EVERy time, as if on Auto-Pilot, without renewing your thinking or refreshing your brain on the subject. Put yourself in another person's shoes and see how it looks from there Scully. OK???? That's fair. Put YOURSELF in my position at the convention, or Brian's position. Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity. Is it still part of the rules when it's YOU at the centre??? |
| AlexRocks 30.04.2008 11:56 |
I have ALL of those Michael Jackson releases you are talking about. There are upwards of twenty full lenght studio l.p.s that are unreleased by Michael Jackson and that's NOT including demos, outtakes, instrumentals, remixes, and alternative versions of tracks. So no in comparison Michael Jackson has released VERY little as well which is my point. Again concentrate people. Things will be released in due time. It is none of you all's business when that is or how. |
| Holly2003 30.04.2008 12:13 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity. Is it still part of the rules when it's YOU at the centre???That's a hilarious thing to say when you just admitted you sold some bootlegs you owned, bootlegs which are according to you stolen, illegally recorded, and from which you made a profit. Or do the rules only apply when it's not you involved? |
| PieterMC 30.04.2008 12:27 |
Holly2003 wrote:I'm willing to bet that Mr. Scully has never sold a bootleg that he has recorded himself.Queen Archivist wrote: Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity. Is it still part of the rules when it's YOU at the centre???That's a hilarious thing to say when you just admitted you sold some bootlegs you owned, bootlegs which are according to you stolen, illegally recorded, and from which you made a profit. Or do the rules only apply when it's not you involved? |
| Togg 30.04.2008 12:28 |
Having listened to all the comments here I have to say that I side with Greg here. Plain and simple if some asks politely please don't record this I think it should be respected. I view the recording of concerts slightly differently but I can understand the argument on both sides. I can see why a collector would want to record at a convention but in this case if I was asked not too I would respect it. I am not casting judgement on anyone this is just how I would react if asked politely not to do something. That being said I have NO bootlegs .. oh sorry yes I do, one CD bought at a car boot sale, however I only really like studio quality recordings. |
| josedequeso 30.04.2008 13:05 |
Holly2003 wrote:OWNED!Queen Archivist wrote: Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity. Is it still part of the rules when it's YOU at the centre???That's a hilarious thing to say when you just admitted you sold some bootlegs you owned, bootlegs which are according to you stolen, illegally recorded, and from which you made a profit. Or do the rules only apply when it's not you involved? |
| Maz 30.04.2008 13:10 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Yes, i listen to bootlegs, of course I do, but I STILL recognise that it's NOT right, that it is stealing, and that its NOT part of the rules. I would never condone that or say its OK. It ISN'T ok. I said that in the book too. You know deep in your heart (never mind the pure legal aspect) that what I'm saying is correct.That sure is a strange way to take the moral high ground. "Yes, I engage in possibly illegal or illicit behavior, but at least I call a spade a spade and know it's wrong" Try substituting virtually any other illegal behavior with that thinking and see where it gets you. |
| teleport8 30.04.2008 13:30 |
Some time ago in another thread the archivist mentioned that stirring up discussions and generating more interest that way is part of his business. So let's not take the initial complaint too serious :) Talking of bootlegs, he obviously knows that some people record stuff. Saying "please don't record this [because it's so valuable]" may not be efficient in practice when you're dealing with strangers... Probably something one could have predicted. Probably there's a reason that Q did not release some of their "material" (whereas they did release Hot Space...). I can imagine that some artists don't want to distribute unfinished demos from bad-hair days. Especially if you still plan to release proper albums and don't want to spoil your reputation in the meantime. Part of the archivist's job description might be to test which material the 200 die-hard fans believe to be promising for reworking and later release. Maybe that's the reason that some people get to hear some snippets, but with a "my precioussss" attitude. In contrast, the job seems to require little in terms of manners and communication skills (maybe I would also be qualified?). |
| Serry... 30.04.2008 13:45 |
Brooks made some fair points actually. Towards the wrong person though. |
| Fenderek 30.04.2008 13:51 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity.I'd counter attack them with a simple solution and put all the shows (doesn't have to be recorded on multitrack, only SLIGHTLY better than bootlegs) on the website and charge some silly money (5 pounds or whatever) and donated it to charity. No-one would make profit from MY work apart from me (tickets) and charity... ANYWAY- you DO realize that many people who record gigs DON'T sell their bootlegs, that selling bootlegs is VERY badly seen on QZ and that most of those recordings are SHRED here? For free? Nobody is earning ANYTHING? Not necesairly about convention- I'm only talking about THAT PARTICULAR aspect... Greg- it really HAS changes since 90's... |
| john bodega 30.04.2008 14:08 |
Queen Archivist wrote: OK PROUD BAD ANY NOT IS IS NOT ALWAYS QZ IS NOT NEVER OK OK IS NOT NOT OK NOTHING BRILLIANT IS NOTHING FINE STILL NOT NOT OK ISN'T DID NOT YOU NOT NOT NOT EVERY OK???? YOURSELF STEALING YOUR YOU Fenderek wrote: SLIGHTLY MY ANYWAY DO DON'T VERY QZ SHRED ANYTHING? THAT PARTICULAR HASWow. Valid points, all |
| Mr. Scully 30.04.2008 14:14 |
Fenderek wrote:Yes, that is the answer. Sell live recordings and donate profit to charity - NOBODY will dare to sell a bootleg of something that is officially available. Same counts for demos and other stuff. (As I said before, this is not aimed at Greg - it's just another typical complaint towards Queen Productions).Queen Archivist wrote: Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity.I'd counter attack them with a simple solution and put all the shows (doesn't have to be recorded on multitrack, only SLIGHTLY better than bootlegs) on the website and charge some silly money (5 pounds or whatever) and donated it to charity. No-one would make profit from MY work apart from me (tickets) and charity... ANYWAY- you DO realize that many people who record gigs DON'T sell their bootlegs, that selling bootlegs is VERY badly seen on QZ and that most of those recordings are SHRED here? For free? Nobody is earning ANYTHING? Not necesairly about convention- I'm only talking about THAT PARTICULAR aspect... Greg- it really HAS changes since 90's... Bootlegging can be seen as something ethically (or legally) wrong but it WAS here, it IS here and it WILL always be here. Just like when you drive at 150 kph on a standard European highway. You know it's not OK but still everybody does it. Bans or threats will not help. |
| Tero 30.04.2008 14:20 |
AlexRocks wrote: I have ALL of those Michael Jackson releases you are talking about. There are upwards of twenty full lenght studio l.p.s that are unreleased by Michael Jackson and that's NOT including demos, outtakes, instrumentals, remixes, and alternative versions of tracks. So no in comparison Michael Jackson has released VERY little as well which is my point. Again concentrate people. Things will be released in due time. It is none of you all's business when that is or how.I'm Sorry, but I don't quite get your point. Michael Jackson is the one with a boxset and expanded versions of the albums released. That boxset features demos, b-sides, and a (until that point) previously unreleased concert... You are completely out of your fucking mind if you think Queen has a better release policy by any stretch of imagination! |
| AlexRocks 30.04.2008 14:55 |
I think we are miscommunicating thanks to the lovely internet. My point was not Queen's record of releasing material from the archives compared to other people but that there are other major recording artists who are holding back on many interesting things as well. Of course Queen have released "At The Beeb" which was unreleased, a couple of live c.d.s ("On Fire" and "Rock Montreal) and concert d.v.d.s (the re-issues and "On Fire" being one from the archives as well as the new releases "Return Of The Champions" and "Super Live") that had not been out before and I would imagine that Queen Productions (as well as a certain Mr. Brooks) would also point out the Freddie Mercury massive 10 c.d. 2 d.v.d box set "The Solo Collection" as well. Maybe I miscommunicated as I was thinking about the five different discussions going on in this thread. So anyone seeing "Iron Man" in the theatres this weekend in the U.S. of A.? Of course I have been torn to shreads around here of Queen using a format that hopefully the rest of the music industry will convert to in order to expand their own studio l.p.s greatly. In the meantime Nine Inch Nails are using this format of Blu-Ray and Neil Young is doing just this thing with expanding his WHOLE catelog later this year in 2008. |
| PieterMC 30.04.2008 15:09 |
AlexRocks wrote: Of course Queen have released "At The Beeb" which was unreleasedIs that not an oxymoron? |
| Tero 30.04.2008 15:31 |
AlexRocks wrote: My point was not Queen's record of releasing material from the archives compared to other people but that there are other major recording artists who are holding back on many interesting things as well.No, I got that point from this discussion, and it seemed like it was what you were trying to convey as well... You just did a terrible job of it when you cited artists who have a better track record than Queen. Compared to Queen, Michael Jackson has been generous to his fans with the boxset. THAT was the point I was trying to get across. |
| AlexRocks 30.04.2008 17:30 |
I do not mean to be argumentive but maybe there are other things going on that we don't know about. As far as "The Ultimate Collection" for Michael Jackson it was generic and a budget compilation as far as I am concerned. The c.d.s were not even filled up all of the way with running time, information within it was incorrect, and it was not remastered in any way. It was to fulfill some sort of contractual obligations which I am not sure anyone understands because this box set left as much to be desired as was released. I think it was to fill a void that M.J. knew was going to be for a few years as I think some of his inactivity involves waiting on him to attain the rights of his master recordings before he does anything new. |
| eiricd 30.04.2008 17:45 |
btw if Brian collected Queen bootlegs - I suppose he would be one of 4 people who could actually do that?? :) |
| teleport8 30.04.2008 18:10 |
eiricd wrote: btw if Brian collected Queen bootlegs - I suppose he would be one of 4 people who could actually do that?? :)He could actually assign this task to his archivist... and ask him not to sell the material this time. |
| AlexRocks 30.04.2008 21:46 |
O.k. PieterMC you got me. Psyche. Let's get all 1980's one time! No. Let me take you by the hand and show that the BBC recordings were not released to purchase for many years until they were released as "At The Beeb" which meant that they were archived material for numerous years. Yes Queen have some interesting and exciting things yet to come. Someone from EMI have already said that they intend to update catelogs by people that he said they considered needing it SUCH as David Bowie and Queen. I also have been waiting for some type of box set since mid 1992 when I was thirteen years old. One that compiled released material in the same vain as the Led Zeppelin four c.d. box set released in 1990. So I am not a newby around these parts either. Wow look my post randomly got placed in the MIDDLE of the discusion in this topic. Silly me. Someone must not have liked what I said. I guess it worked. |
| Tero 01.05.2008 04:34 |
AlexRocks wrote: I do not mean to be argumentive but maybe there are other things going on that we don't know about. As far as "The Ultimate Collection" for Michael Jackson it was generic and a budget compilation as far as I am concerned. The c.d.s were not even filled up all of the way with running time, information within it was incorrect, and it was not remastered in any way. It was to fulfill some sort of contractual obligations which I am not sure anyone understands because this box set left as much to be desired as was released. I think it was to fill a void that M.J. knew was going to be for a few years as I think some of his inactivity involves waiting on him to attain the rights of his master recordings before he does anything new.I don't mean to sound argumentative either, but even that contractual filler album was a better archive collection than anything Queen has ever come up with... Doesn't that ring any alarm bells with you? |
| somedayoneday 07.05.2008 13:38 |
I was alerted to this thread by someone on the Fan Club forum. This is only the second time I have posted on the QZ forum. This is because of discussions like this - people hurling accusations at each other and getting at each others' throats - where, in fact has it got you? You've just gone round in circles! Mr Scully may not wish to travel from the Czech Republic (I believe I have the right location) for the FC convention, but it's his loss. There is far more going on than Fancy Dress competitions and the like. People can simply do what they enjoy - and that's called FUN. Then there is the more 'serious' stuff - guest interviews etc. I was delighted that Greg came back this year to share these 'outtakes'. I was even more delighted that they didn't have 'Property of Queen Productions' running across them every few seconds. At last, I thought, we're not being treated like a group of potentially naughty kids. Yes, HELLO, we're the fans, we would respect the wishes of the band (or a band member) imparted to us by Greg. But oh no, someone goes and records, and so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends. All I can say is that I'm sorry this has happened. Talking about other issues regarding 'bootlegging' is not relevant because two wrongs don't make a right. What part of 'This is not to be recorded' - or words to that effect - did someone not understand? So now you have apparently ruined things for the rest of us. Thanks a bundle, whoever you are. |
| Fenderek 07.05.2008 14:51 |
somedayoneday wrote: But oh no, someone goes and records, and so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.I'm gonna ask you what I asked Greg (with no reply, obviously). How do you know this recording exists? Did you hear ANYTHING? |
| Donna13 07.05.2008 15:43 |
somedayoneday wrote: What part of 'This is not to be recorded' - or words to that effect - did someone not understand? So now you have apparently ruined things for the rest of us. Thanks a bundle, whoever you are.The person who recorded Greg's presentation did not share it with anyone. He asked permission to share it here, got an answer back from Greg, and has not shared it (so I think that proves that he did not want to "ruin" it for everyone). No harm done in the end. No reason for all this grumpiness among Queen fans. |
| somedayoneday 07.05.2008 16:59 |
Glad to hear it - but I'm only going on the title of the thread and the aggressive and sometimes incomprehensible argument that I've ploughed through here. I still think that the person who recorded should not have done so, if only to respect a request and to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, I look forward to hearing more selections like this WITHOUT the spoken message running across them, please! |
| Jamaleni 14.05.2008 04:37 |
Queen Archivist wrote: continued... We'll start respecting wishes of the band (or of you) when the band (or you) start respecting us, fans.Beside the part which I left in my quote, I absolutelly agree with GB. If he asked people to not make a recordings, why somebody think that he/she could record..... And about the way Queen/QPL/QFC treat their fans, all that I had to say is in my other post.... link |
| somedayoneday 18.05.2008 07:32 |
Fenderek wrote:Of course not, but please refer to the details at the start of this thread - the reason why it was started. If the recording is not shared, I'm glad, if it's been destroyed I'm even happier. Best, however, if it never existed at all. Maybe this is the case? Anyway, I have answered you, though I'm sure Greg could give you a better answer as he was the one who started the thread. My concern lies in the possibility that we may not get these recordings played to us again if someone chooses to disregard instructions.somedayoneday wrote: But oh no, someone goes and records, and so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.I'm gonna ask you what I asked Greg (with no reply, obviously). How do you know this recording exists? Did you hear ANYTHING? |
| john bodega 18.05.2008 07:48 |
I recorded it and sold it on ebay. |
| somedayoneday 18.05.2008 15:35 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I recorded it and sold it on ebay.Did you cover the cost of your return flight? |
| CM 18.05.2008 16:31 |
Dear Greg, I have been a reader of this board for years, and after reading your post I had to be part of this conversation. First of all, let me tell you that I respect your point of view and interesting job. I think you are doing something useful and we will enjoy some of your compiled information some way in future Queen printed products. We can say you did the right thing by saying "Guys, I have to tell you something: don't record this, please". It is part of your job and you do it OK. Now please, think about the reasons why things happen the way they do. The answer in the end will be simple. We all LOVE Queen and their music. In 1998 I recorded Brian playing in my country. The sound is bad but I still feel great every time I play that old tape and find myself there, amazed, cheering and clapping in the middle of the songs. I did the same thing in 2005 and let me tell you those tapes are now part of the story of my life. Happy moments on tape that I still can taste when I play them. But this is not just about the audio and video files recorded where we were in person to record them. As many people in this board, I have a big collection of demos, Queen shows and solo shows. I enjoy every single second of these CDs and tapes. When you keep listening to just one or two versions of a single song for 15 years, maybe 20, I can tell you that getting new live versions, edited versions, demo versions, instrumental versions, rehearsal versions, cover versions, banned versions or any other will always be welcome and a reason to enjoy them again and again. We all enjoy their interviews, shows, albums, demos and any other stuff that we can get the chance to listen to. Now lets face it. If we all could hear right now the stuff from the new Cosmos album (even with bad audio quality), we ALL would hear it. NO-ONE would say: "I love this band so much that I will wait and listen to it when it is released within 3 months". We are all want to hear it as soon as possible because we LOVE what they do! If you love Queen, that is what you do. If you hate Queen or dont care about them, you simply don't pay any attention to what they do because you dont like them at all. People going to the conventions can enjoy some rare stuff with great quality and your personal comments on the tracks. I think that is something great for the fans interested in going there. If the rest of the fans all over the world would have the opportunity to listen to a crappy recording of any of those rare songs that others heard first with nice quality, I can tell you any of us would listen to it with excitement and joy. We are not talking about killers, monsters or bad and unpleasant people. Not even thieves. I wish thieves in this world were only interested in enjoying never heard songs. I'm sure life would be much better for everybody. Months before Made In Heaven, in 1995, I got the now common Too Much love Will Kill You demo with Freddie singing. After 3 years only hearing the Brian version from his album, I heard that one for the very first time and made me cry. It was so beautiful! That song I had heard so many times for 3 years, was new again to me with that demo. And when you are a Queen fan, anything new to your ears (specially with Freddie's voice on it) is like a perfect moment that gets you back to all the previous premiere parties you had at home listening every record, b-side or soundboard bootleg recording for the first time. As long as we feel this emotions for Queen music, we fans are not bad kids with bad behaviour that should be corrected. Your post made me remember something that many of us probably remember from when we were at school. Someone was talking while the teacher was in the middle of an explanation. Then, the teacher punishes the whole group of kids and says: "you all had been warned, I wanted all of you to stay in silence, but one of you did not! now you are all punished. Dont you like it? th |
| mooghead 18.05.2008 16:51 |
Blah blah..I'm the Queen archivist, I know loads of stuff and I'm not going to tell you....you must all worship me.......BORING. Greg, if you went awway and never came back no-one would lose a seconds sleep. Goodbye cock tease. |
| john bodega 19.05.2008 00:09 |
somedayoneday wrote:It paid for everyone elses ticket as well.Zebonka12 wrote: I recorded it and sold it on ebay.Did you cover the cost of your return flight? |
| brians wig 19.05.2008 10:34 |
CM wrote: Dear Greg, I have been a reader of this board for years, and after reading your post I had to be part of this conversation.... blah blah blah.... Your friend, CesarOkay, I'm not going to waste half a page duplicating Cesar's full posting, it's on Page FOUR for anyone who wants to read it. I'm simply going to say that I am totally in agreement with him. It IS a shame that we convention goers are asked not to record the demo tracks, complete with people talking, coughing, sneezing, footsteps and "Property of QPL" all over them and then share them on forums like this one, because those people unable to attend the conventions miss out on some wonderful music, however dreadful the quality of the recordings. At the end of the day, when these recordings are released officially, there isn't one person here who won't want to buy them inorder to hear them in glorious pristine stereo sound, regardless as to whether they possess dodgy MP3 (amatuer) convention recordings or not. So what exactly IS the issue? Finally, I think you may have jumped the gun a little Mr Brooks, as I believe it is the music that you ask people not to record at convention, and NOT what you say. |
| Micrówave 19.05.2008 11:53 |
somedayoneday wrote: so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.This is somewhat similar to what Indiana Jones said at the end of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, just replace "Ark" for "recording". Now I was pretty impressed with the "power" unleashed by the ark, especially when it melted those two evil dudes. Paul Freeman's exploding head was also quite the trick. But really, Greg, is this material THAT powerful? Well, then it should probably stay locked up and NOT played for convention go-ers in the first place. It's YOU - GREG BROOKS - that are placing the lives of conventioners at risk. What, do you have some sort of "God" complex? |
| The Fake Greg Brooks 19.05.2008 11:54 |
Let me tell you something... when it comes to Queen, I AM GOD. |
| somedayoneday 19.05.2008 14:02 |
Micrówave wrote:In the great scheme of things, of course, it's not that important- but anyway, I've already stated my reasons for participating in this discussion. It's a shame if the recordings do have to stay locked up. Maybe now that's what will happen but I've no idea if the decision rests entirely with Greg.somedayoneday wrote: so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.This is somewhat similar to what Indiana Jones said at the end of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, just replace "Ark" for "recording". Now I was pretty impressed with the "power" unleashed by the ark, especially when it melted those two evil dudes. Paul Freeman's exploding head was also quite the trick. But really, Greg, is this material THAT powerful? Well, then it should probably stay locked up and NOT played for convention go-ers in the first place. It's YOU - GREG BROOKS - that are placing the lives of conventioners at risk. What, do you have some sort of "God" complex? |
| Donna13 19.05.2008 14:03 |
Micrówave wrote:This is not fair. You are just trying to get us excited about the return of Indiana Jones to the movie theatre ... or ... is it the return of Greg to this thread? Anyway, Greg did study something spiritual for 16 years (he briefly mentioned this and then I think he never went into detail for us, so I have no idea what he meant by it). But I'm sure Brian took that into consideration before trusting him with such ... valuables.somedayoneday wrote: so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.This is somewhat similar to what Indiana Jones said at the end of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, just replace "Ark" for "recording". Now I was pretty impressed with the "power" unleashed by the ark, especially when it melted those two evil dudes. Paul Freeman's exploding head was also quite the trick. But really, Greg, is this material THAT powerful? Well, then it should probably stay locked up and NOT played for convention go-ers in the first place. It's YOU - GREG BROOKS - that are placing the lives of conventioners at risk. What, do you have some sort of "God" complex? |
| john bodega 19.05.2008 14:55 |
GREG PLEASE RESPOND MY COCK'S ON FIRE - FOR MORE DICK |
| Fenderek 20.05.2008 10:15 |
I also found CM's post very interesting and I agree with him 100%. The fact that people record and share those carppy sounding convention recordings only shows we are still interested in that product, that releasing Box Set would find a customer, taht there is still few of us waiting for BBC sessions, dreaming about 70s gigs and so on... But you know... that may dry out, you know? The last really good release was Milton keynes- and that was an exception rather than a rule... We are patient, we are waiting, we are hungry, but... are we gonna wait forever? Queen at the moment is not even my favourite band- simply because there is NOTHING NEW for me here... Sure- I'm going to attend few gigs of the new tour just as I did in 2005. Sure I'd bought BBC sessions if they were released on the day of the release, but... I'm growing indifferent to all those re-releases, I'm not excited by them and every time I hear that sth big is coming up- I take it with a huge pinch of salt... I want to be surprised, I want to be proven wrong and I want to be excited AGAIN by this band, by the music they recorded few months ago or few years ago- by something new... Sorry, few toothbrushes or new 5.1 mix of God Save The Queen or fancy Dress Party at the convention or "new videos" on ANATO Anniversary DVD- this is not enough to excite me... We plead and plead, we are all dreaming about certain releases- and you well know what they are; if not Box Set than BBCs, if not BBC- than live gigs THAT WE DON'T KNOW... Good documentary... Man, there is so many things we've been asking for and waiting for YEARS... Are you surprised that when all we get is some copy&paste videos on ANATO DVD (which we already heard in 5.1 and i'm telling you- the first mix was BETTER!), Live Aid only a year after we bought 3 DVD set with the whole gig, 100 Bootlegs initative which is laughable (bad, lossy format, MANY msitakes and not even the best versions of certain gigs) and so on- that after that someone recorded few demos you played at the convention? And I'm talking about those demos few years ago- those that were eventually shared (and which anyway leaked in studio quality later on...). Here nobody heard a thing. Even you- the only proof you or Brian have that anything had been recorded is the fact that someone said sth. Brilliant... Anyway... I'd be happy that some people are still so crazy about the music those four guys made that they even enjoy listening at home crappy recordings, with some chatter and coughing, with "property of QP" every few seconds... Man- that shows you that you still have a base which will buy anything you are going to put name Queen on... But for how long? |
| Micrówave 20.05.2008 12:09 |
Guilty. But will Greg respond to this thread BEFORE the release of Jones IV? |