| Jam Monkey 19.02.2010 16:55 |
Acetates are undoubtedly amongst the rarest, most desirable and most expensive music collectables. I find acetates fascinating objects and I’m lucky enough to own two; each one cost me more me more than any other item in my collection and they are amongst my prized items. In this post I want to look at some key points: 1) What is an acetate? 2) How are they used? 3) Why so rare/expensive? 4) What are the most interesting Queen acetates? 5) CDR acetates? What is an acetate? Acetates, unlike vinyl, have a metal plate as a base. These are then coated with a fine layer of a wax like substance into which groves can be cut. If you want to get really technical acetates don’t actually contain any acetate at all, it’s a nitro-cellulose lacquer. While they might look like vinyl records they certainly are not vinyl’s. The metal plate makes acetates much heavier that vinyl, and they have no flexibility. Acetates are notoriously fragile and after 30-40 plays will simply wear out. Acetates are typically one sided, although two sided examples have been known, and can come in 7”, 10” and 12” sizes. It’s not unusual for a 7” record to be cut into 10” disc. A common misconception is that acetates are flexi discs (That used to get given away with magazines). This of course couldn’t be further from the truth. How are they used? Acetates have had a variety of uses of the years but from a Queen perspective they were used as the earliest test pressing, prior to producing vinyl’s. Mastering engineers would have produced acetates so the band/producers etc. could hear how their songs would sound on vinyl, and also to check for any problems with the sound. Once all concerned were happy with the sound the master would be made and vinyl’s would be produced from that master. Why so rare/expensive? Acetates are expensive to produce, and were always made in very limited numbers, perhaps no more than 10 at a time; and as we’ve already established they are very fragile. Given the limited numbers, and the fact that a lot would have been damaged/destroyed over the years you can see why they are so rare. Perhaps the important thing about them though is what is on the disc. Acetates are the earliest pressings of any track, and many Queen acetates contain unique versions/mixes of tracks. The band might have mixed a track, pressed in to acetate and then decided to go back to the tapes and make changes. It’s these acetates that will cost the big money. I also think acetates have some glamour. They are the closest you will get to the master recordings without breaking into Queen Productions. What are the most interesting Queen acetates? Over the years many Queen acetates have been discovered and sold. Most contain the standard versions of tracks we will be familiar with, but some are unique. I’ll deal first with what we know to exist, and then with the rumour mill. Keep Yourself Alive: There is an acetate containing the ‘long lost retake’ and also an edit of this track. This edit was very kindly shared on Queenzone some years ago. Killer Queen: Most Queen fans will be familiar with the face that the Killer Queen acetate has a slightly different version of the track. The finger snaps at the start go on for about 10 seconds. Ogre Battle: This acetate contains an edit of the BBC sessions version of the track. Liar: Some time ago eil.com sold an acetate that contained an unique 3.36 edit. I don’t know how much in went for but I would imagine it was expensive. We Will Rock You: A minor edit of this track appears on acetate. The vocals start straight away. Hangman: One well known Queen collector has a 10” acetate containing the studio version of Hangman. Enough said. Hot Space: An acetate containing the David Bowie version of Cool Cat. We know Bowie’s vocal were removed at the last moment, so this makes sense that this version ended up of acetate. The rumour mill: Jesus: There has long been rumoured to be a Jesus acetate with a unique mix, but as far as I can tell it has never surfaced. Breakthru: There is a known acetate of Breakthru containing the extended mix, but one collector recently told me he owed an acetate with a unique version of the track. Who knows? CDR Acetates? You may see ‘CDR Acetates’ advertised from time to time. Needless to say they are just plain CDR’s. So why the name? Well CDR’s really are the modern version of an acetate, and early version that you can test out before pressing silver CD’s, so I think we can forgive the naming here. This is an excellent page on acetates on Queen Museum with some interesting pictures: link Many thanks to John S Stuart for proof reading my post. |
| joesilvey 19.02.2010 17:20 |
great post, Jam Monkey... very interesting stuff.. |
| Wiley 19.02.2010 18:15 |
Love the topic. I was curious about what an acetate was but I guess not curious enough to investigate it. Thanks! Hopefully more contributions will come from the people who know more about these items. Craig, may I ask what acetates do you own? |
| Thistle 19.02.2010 18:53 |
This is an excellent post mate - I had a fair idea of the concept, but I love the detail you've gone into here. To be honest, I often find the word "acetate" a little worrying - very tempting when they turn up, but how do you prove their validity? That may be a daft question considering what you're saying about them being done in limited runs because they are expensive to run, but wouldn't that be the sort of cost a bootlegger would relish if it meant huge profit? (And how could you possibly credit the provenance of a plain CDR acetate nowadays?). Also, I did not know that there actually was a studio version of hangman! I've heard the rumours but thought they were just that - why has it not surfaced? I mean, it's not as if digitizing it would actually de-value the actual acetate.....(or would it?)....just a thought. |
| daga 20.02.2010 04:25 |
What about pre Queen acetates? Smile Step on me/ Polar Bear? |
| Jam Monkey 20.02.2010 06:12 |
Ok, let me try and answer some of your questions: There are some pre-queen acetates. Two from RTs band The Reaction and also an acetate from JDs band The Opposistion. There is also a Smile acetate containing Earth/Step On Me. All of these would have three zeros on the price tag, if you ever find one. As for my acetates; I own a single sided 10" acetate of Headlong and doubled sided 7" acetates of Bicycle Race/Fat Bottomed Girls. The latter is a Japanese pressing, almost certainly a test pressing for the Japanese single release. I'll post pictures when I have the chance. Acetates come up for sale every so often but my advice is be quick, they never hang around for long; an be careful! There are fakes out there and I was nearly taken in once myself. When I get some free time I will post a more comprehensive list of Queen acetates. |
| Soundfreak 20.02.2010 09:19 |
"The latter is a Japanese pressing, almost certainly a test pressing for the Japanese single release. I'll post pictures when I have the chance." I'm confused - how can an acetate be a "pressing"? Acetates were cut directly in the recording studios mainly for the purpose, that the artists could take "something home" . That at least is the reason for the many existing Beatles acetates. But acetates is a "sixties" thing, that may have been done up to the early 70s. So acetates of 80s- and even 90s- tracks sounds surprising. What should have been their purpose? |
| Jam Monkey 20.02.2010 13:14 |
Soundfreak wrote: "The latter is a Japanese pressing, almost certainly a test pressing for the Japanese single release. I'll post pictures when I have the chance." I'm confused - how can an acetate be a "pressing"? Acetates were cut directly in the recording studios mainly for the purpose, that the artists could take "something home" . That at least is the reason for the many existing Beatles acetates. But acetates is a "sixties" thing, that may have been done up to the early 70s. So acetates of 80s- and even 90s- tracks sounds surprising. What should have been their purpose? Perhaps pressing is the wrong word. I said in the original post acetates would have been produced prior to pressing vinyl. Their purpose would have been to see how the master tape transfers to a record, to see if any adjustments in volume/compression etc. would be needed for the transfer to vinyl. Therefore it is not that susprisng to find some acetates from the 80's and 90's, although most Queen acetates are from the early 70's. |
| Soundfreak 20.02.2010 15:36 |
I remain very sceptical. Acetates are extremely rare as every acetate is an original. I doubt that they found their way into the collectors market. And the ones you describe could easily be faked by those, that have the tools - like the bootleggers who used to press vinyl. You can easily double the fingersnipping intro for Killer Queen, the other versions you describe are also available. But why should there be an acetate of the BBC "Ogre Battle"? And I never heard of a studioversion of "Hangman", I vagely remember one interview where they denied the existance of a studio version. I mean - you never know - but I'm very sceptical of "certain rarities". If they contain a different mix that is available nowhere else they have a value. If it's just a regular version, I do not understand what's the value of a piece of metal, that loses quality with every performance..... If they had a real value, people would not sell them.... |
| Micrówave 20.02.2010 15:40 |
Yeah, who's the well-known Queen Fan so we can start spamming him to death?? Great, great thread. I now have a much better understanding of what these are. And I also know that I have even less possibility of ever obtainin one. |
| John S Stuart 20.02.2010 18:38 |
Micrówave wrote: Yeah, who's the well-known Queen Fan so we can start spamming him to death? It is me - I own it. Why has it not been released - because I do not wish it. I have served the Queen community very well over the last 20 - odd years. I would argue that 95% of the material available outside QPL is down to me somewhere along the line. (Not a boast or an exaggeration - but a simple fact - for those who care to do their homework). Nevertheless, after all my goodwill and all that I have 'released' now being shared by thousands (which could not be otherwise) when it came my turn to ask for a copy of the 'Stone Cold Crazy' 24 tracks - I was either told 'Sorry mate' - or - 'not available unless...' (BTW: I am still looking for this). Freddie was right: people do discard you as old toilet paper after they have used you, and no one gets to sit on their old generosities. So finally; for those who claim I will die, or they will die, and all life's meaning being futile... May I remind them, I have only kept back the one rareity - It is QPL who have the real archive. Perhaps it is they who need the spamming. |
| Micrówave 20.02.2010 21:13 |
So finally; for those who claim I will die, or they will die, and all life's meaning being futile... May I remind them, I have only kept back the one rareity - It is QPL who have the real archive. Perhaps it is they who need the spamming. Well, John, QPL is well-known for waiting for someone to die to release something good. By the way, you're not boasting at all. I'm sure I represent us all on here when I say "Thanks for making the Freddie Box worth having!!" I didn't really care which disc it was on (Archivist), but the fact that I've heard Freddie BEFORE Queen was awesome!!! |
| thunderbolt 31742 21.02.2010 01:58 |
Soundfreak wrote: And I never heard of a studioversion of "Hangman", I vagely remember one interview where they denied the existance of a studio version. It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession. What about the acetate containing the Jailhouse Rock medley, which was held off the debut album for royalty reasons? Unless I'm mistaken, there are a couple of members on this forum who've seen/heard it, even if neither one of them actually owns it. |
| Soundfreak 21.02.2010 04:21 |
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession." As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. In this internet world it's so easy to create myths or fool people. "I know someone who knows someone who has an acetate of the first Bo Rap with less Gallileos....." and soon it finds it's way into someone's wish list....;-) And those who pretend "I have something that all of you do not have and I won't show/play it to you" are my "favorites".... |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 05:41 |
As promised here are some acetate pictures. This is the Bicycle Race/Fat Bottomed Girls acetate. Bicycle Race is identical to the album version but Fat Bottomed Girls fades out 4 seconds early for some reason. |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 05:42 |
And here is the Headlong acetate. |
| pittrek 21.02.2010 05:47 |
Thank you very much, I love informational threads |
| Queenrockyou 21.02.2010 06:23 |
Soundfreak wrote: "It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession." As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. In this internet world it's so easy to create myths or fool people. I get your point here. But I don't think John could be called a liar ir whatever else. His knowledge and the information hegives us is regularly accurate, so if he tells he has it, I believe him 100% (let's say 99,99%). The fact he is frustrated at how collectors got against him can only be understandable. My guess is we won't get him share this one unless we get a little more "friendly" as far as collecting is concerned. I don't think he will share it. Dear John, what would be your conditions for getting that one "released" ? At the moment, we can say that the Holy thing exists. Well, not 100% sure, but 99,99% sure ! Regards, Olivier, Belgium. |
| emrabt 21.02.2010 06:44 |
Thanks for this, it's VERY interesting. Would they melt if you left them in a warm room, is it wax they are coated with or some kind of soft Shelac? |
| August R. 21.02.2010 07:10 |
Jam Monkey wrote: As promised here are some acetate pictures. This is the Bicycle Race/Fat Bottomed Girls acetate. Bicycle Race is identical to the album version but Fat Bottomed Girls fades out 4 seconds early for some reason. Looks like one of Brian's streo pictures to me. Haha! Seriously, this is a good thread. |
| John S Stuart 21.02.2010 07:42 |
Soundfreak wrote: "It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession." As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. A bit of a flat earth policy there, but, basically I agree with you. And if I were you - that is the position I would take also. But you do not have to be so eagerly dismissive. You can weigh the evidence for yourself (which is basically two choices)... 1: I am a liar Vs; 2: People accept me for who I am based on previous results. It is after all, all I really have. Like an athlete, I am picked for an Olympic team because people can judge me on my past track record. (I think Ruth said I am 99.9% trustworthy), and actions talk louder than words. At the end of the day - it is your decission, and as attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it" |
| john bodega 21.02.2010 08:21 |
Blah blah blah... the Hangman studio version isn't even any good. |
| david (galashiels) 21.02.2010 09:28 |
thanks for the thread.at last i know what an acestate is.cheers |
| david (galashiels) 21.02.2010 09:29 |
now i just need explained what.heavy vinyl. is.compared to a normal lp. |
| Soundfreak 21.02.2010 11:51 |
John S Stuart wrote:Soundfreak wrote: "It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession." As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical.A bit of a flat earth policy there, but, basically I agree with you. And if I were you - that is the position I would take also. So far I have no idea who you are nor do I know that you are the person owning that particular acetate. And I never called anyone a liar as I had no idea, where the idea of an acetate of "Hangman" has it's origin. But I know how the internet works. Even an excerpt of some mono oldie, I once reworked to stereo for private fun, was recently featured somewhere as a "proof, that a true stereo mix of that song exists"....And I had fun, when I found out that it was just a snippet from my work.... Over the years I saw many boots offering demos by Queen and they turned out to be out of phase - remixes or just one stereo channel. So I learned to only believe what I hear. If you have something you do not want to share with others - just don't talk about it. Cause what's the point? Do you want others to become jealous? Does it make you feel special when you have something that others do not have? Keep quiet and enjoy. Just look what happens to this poor archive man on this board who gets to see all those rarities but can't share them. And because he talks about it, some people start to hate him.... |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 11:53 |
emrabt wrote: Thanks for this, it's VERY interesting. Would they melt if you left them in a warm room, is it wax they are coated with or some kind of soft Shelac? It's not wax as such but nitro-cellulose lacquer, the melting point of which (according to Wikipedia) is 160°C. However if you don't mind I won't be leaving mine out in the sun to test this theory. |
| Queenrockyou 21.02.2010 14:30 |
To Soundfreak : Well, I'm not going to answer for John, but I think you get something wrong. First, on the fact that he is not a liar. I think I was the one who told that. Sorry if I misunderstood your saying. Then, the fact that he talks about that acetate is not a "Show myself" thing, I mean it is not done to entertain some jealousy or something. Everyone involved in Queen collection knows that for a fact, John has a lot of stuff and knowledge that made him a sort of reference for us, that is a fact, nothing more. I don't get why he would announce something wrong that openly, as a collector I think he cares for his reputation (even if he doesn't think to that every morning while awaking). I would be happy to tell you "yes, I can confirm, I broke his house once, and fould the acetate, so I'm a second serious source to be able to prove that it exists". He is of course not the only collector to have interesting stuff (I myself have the "Absolute Greatest" box. Don't worry, I was kidding on that one ;o) ). Now, seriously, I am 99% sure that John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more. I think he probably has received lots of annoying PMs by now, so it was not his own interest. It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence. The fact is that John IS a serious collector, and nothing more (that said, we can like him, love him, want to marry him, hate him, want to kill him, that is just personal and another story). He is very helpful, and when he can add his help on a matter, he generally gives good advice and knowledge (for example the list year by year of all releases is just a really nice feature that was done not for selling but just for sharing knowledge). I don't know him closely, but his reputation seems quite clear on that matter. So before the heat rises between both of you on this forum, I think you should consider this too, and take care you are not misunderstanding his point of view. The fact this is a written discussion means we can misunderstood someone else's mood or words by trying to read between the lines. Same goes for John, please confirm what I said if correct, so that the discussion can be kept on a friendly basis. Regards, Olivier, Belgium. |
| John S Stuart 21.02.2010 14:55 |
ruth.olivier wrote: ...John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more... It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence. That is the whole story - plain and simple. No teasing or showing-off intended. Just a simple matter of fact statement for the record. Of course, I have always been open about it, and some in here wondered, who it was 'who made the claim'. I answered that question to aviod confusion. It was me. (A 'Spartacus' moment if you like) If I offended or sounded boastful I apologise. |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 15:09 |
It's a bit of a shame this thread has decended into a 'Does Hangman exist' discussion. I started it with the aim of writing an informative post that would be interesting/useful to QZ members. The Hangman discussion has been done to death before. On a personal level I believe it exists, because I have alot of evidence John is trustworthy and no evidence that he isn't. But in the end what does it matter? I prefer to focus on the records/material I can get my hands on, and that's what I am going to continue to do. |
| Soundfreak 21.02.2010 15:11 |
Don't worry Olivier, I have nothing against anyone here and I'm not intending to attack any people. I'm also a long time collector - although I may collect a bit different. And I was only making a general comment on certain kinds of collectors I have met more than once in my life. I did not adress this to someone special. This is something I always say when collectors "own" something that they don't want to share with anybody : Don't talk about it ! ;-) |
| Thistle 21.02.2010 15:34 |
John S Stuart wrote:ruth.olivier wrote: ...John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more... It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence.That is the whole story - plain and simple. No teasing or showing-off intended. Just a simple matter of fact statement for the record. That was exactly my point when I said I had heard "victory" (not that I'm trying to turn this topic into another discussion). For the record, I actually do believe you, John, despite my attempts at pissing you off earlier this morning - I hope you have read my response on that. |
| John S Stuart 21.02.2010 15:42 |
Soundfreak wrote: Don't worry Olivier, I have nothing against anyone here and I'm not intending to attack any people. I'm also a long time collector - although I may collect a bit different. And I was only making a general comment on certain kinds of collectors I have met more than once in my life. I did not adress this to someone special. This is something I always say when collectors "own" something that they don't want to share with anybody : Don't talk about it ! ;-) Soundfreak: I agree with you - so I think a quick history lesson is due here. Originally, (as I recollect) I was not the one who leaked this info to the masses. I think I let this slip out - as a genuine slip to another individual - and later found myself in a 'public' position where I could not take it back. There was no malice intended, and there was no betrayal of confidence. It was just 'one of those accidental things. So when later questioned if the 'rumour' was true, I (correctly or incorrectly) chose the "Published and be damned" route, simply to avoid confusion and to keep the record straight. Although I have made no secret of ownership, I don't think I have ever been guilty of bragging - and have tried to keep this info as low-key as possible. |
| Wiley 21.02.2010 16:21 |
My impression from John S Stuart, having read and posted in this forum for about 9 years, is that he is the real deal. I have no reason to not believe in what he says. Back to acetates now! Anybody knows if the Killer Queen acetate sold on eBay recently is real or, who bought it? I usually make the mistake of thinking that the biggest Queen collectors all post or at least read this forum but I guess the Queen Collector world is much bigger than QZ. |
| Queenrockyou 21.02.2010 16:44 |
Back to the topic. Talking about prices and Ebay, I don't really follow the bids about acetates, to be honest, but I tend to think there are quite regularly bids about acetates, when it seems they are quite rare, only a few for each single. Should be some of a collector's treasure that would not get sold that regularly, and furthermore I think most of them would be kept by the band members/management/archives, given the exclusive nature of that product. My question is, how can we state clearly if an acetate is genuine or not ? Is there a "truth" sign to be searched for or anything ? Are there so many fakes out there ? regards, Olivier, Belgium. |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 17:18 |
Wiley wrote:
Anybody knows if the Killer Queen acetate sold on eBay recently is real or, who bought it?
I usually make the mistake of thinking that the biggest Queen collectors all post or at least read this forum but I guess the Queen Collector world is much bigger than QZ.
It was, I beleive, a fake. That particular seller also claimed to have a Freddie acetate he later admitted to me was a fake. |
| ferdy 22.02.2010 08:50 |
Yes the recent KQ acetate was a fake...poor quality paper and also in mint condition which as you can imagine it's really impossible for an acetate who originally had other purposes. About the jap acetate, in this case I don't see which is the reason of it's existance. I would imagine that a test pressing could exist but why an acetate? If they were printed for testing a recording and after that, band or producers approval, why acetates from different country than UK. exist. More informations on acetates: A version on how the single or LP will be, even double sided was also pressed and usually it contains the exact versions of the released format. About the Hot space with diff. cool cat. It went a step further than acetate cause copies of the vinyl test pressing from USA exist. |
| Fone Bone 22.02.2010 10:21 |
Sun City soundboard, Innuendo and The Miracle Demos, Boston 76, the Michael Jackson duets, Bo Rhap multitracks, increasingly accurate and fascinating resources regarding Queen in the studio (J S Stuart) and live performances (GH, Scully) : the community, of which John S Stuart is a most respected member, has been giving out many amazing, wonderful things these last few years. Any frustration I might have as a fan would thus be directed at QPL, certainly not at a private collector and certainly not at John. You say you own a studio version of Hangman ? Well I believe you and I say good for you. If you don't wanna share it it's your right entirely. In a just and fair world QPL would buy it from you for a good price and than make it a commercial release so that everyone could enjoy it. |
| Thistle 22.02.2010 20:06 |
John S Stuart wrote (On the subject of the "Hangman" acetate): It is me - I own it. Why has it not been released - because I do not wish it Hi John, I was thinking this one over and have the following questions for you: According to Jam Monkey, acetates are tantamount to vinyl test runs, cut by the band to hear what vinyl would sound like after the tapes have been transferred. If this is so, would that not mean that Queen would have at least a tape of the Hangman studio version in the archives? If so, would it not ultimately be up to them to release it? (or do you now own it exclusively, like Mr. Jackson did with the Beatles recordings ?) These questions are not born out of disrespect (nor disbelief of your ownership of the acetate as we've already talked that one through), I was just wondering about it whilst listening to the live version last night. Cheers James |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2010 21:03 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote:
According to Jam Monkey, acetates are tantamount to vinyl test runs, cut by the band to hear what vinyl would sound like after the tapes have been transferred. If this is so, would that not mean that Queen would have at least a tape of the Hangman studio version in the archives? If so, would it not ultimately be up to them to release it? (or do you now own it exclusively, like Mr. Jackson did with the Beatles recordings ?)
Two answers really; First: I own a 10" single - not the copyrights. Therefore I could not legally release it. Second: Sometimes acetates were cut by the band to hear what the track sounded like in progress. These are called reference acetates. There are many Beatles acetates (The Beatles Acetates CD by Yellow Dog) which demonstrate that these are the only sources of these tracks. In other words they were never committed to tape, and are not logged in Mark Lewisham's book. The following page is really worth reading about acetates: link |
| The Real Wizard 22.02.2010 21:44 |
Fone Bone wrote: Sun City soundboard, Innuendo and The Miracle Demos, Boston 76, the Michael Jackson duets, Bo Rhap multitracks, increasingly accurate and fascinating resources regarding Queen in the studio (J S Stuart) and live performances (GH, Scully) : the community, of which John S Stuart is a most respected member, has been giving out many amazing, wonderful things these last few years. It's absolutely flattering to be included on someone's list of positive things about being a Queen fan. All I can say is... we're doing what we can in the absence of decent official releases in recent years. Let's see if QP can top all of these great tapes that keep coming out, like the new Boston 77. At least they're coming out in one way or another. |
| Fone Bone 23.02.2010 09:02 |
Well the pleasure is all mine, Sir GH. It is a fact that I have spent many entertaining hours reading your site when the Absolute Greatest A4 Booklet kept me amused for about 45 minutes. It is true that many wonderful things have come out of the bushes recently, but it's also certain (and Greg's recent hints are quite assertive about it) that there are gems in the vaults that are entirely unsuspected by the most knowledgeable collector you can find Let's hope some see the light of day as well as official releases |
| The Real Wizard 23.02.2010 12:52 |
Exactly... nobody really can be an expert, because our expertise is limited to what is available to us. Nobody has everything.. not even Greg. |
| John S Stuart 23.02.2010 15:52 |
Sir GH wrote: Exactly... nobody really can be an expert, because our expertise is limited to what is available to us. Nobody has everything.. not even Greg. Totally agreed. I hope you contribute to the Ultimate Collection request (another thread). Your input would be more than welcome. |
| Jam Monkey 01.03.2010 17:24 |
link This acetate was sold on eBay a couple of days ago. If anyone here bought it it would be interesting to know if the songs are unknown versions on not. |
| craigob11 11.11.2016 19:31 |
Just to say 'Jesus' does exist...i used to own it along with the 'Re-cut KYA'. Believe it or not & it is the truth..i paid £50.00 for KYA from Adrians record store in the early '80's & 'Jesus' came with it!!!..i had the two Tridents framed. I only ever played them once & both mixes were different ..KYA harder guitar playing & the drum section slightly different . An heavier version overall. Jesus as I remember also sounded richer & freddies vocal varied throughout. I later sold sold these through a dealer & I believe they went to a collector called Cristian in Austria..i recently only found this out after a conversation with Andreas Voights...but it does exist...& yes ive regretted selling them ever since. |
| Chopin1995 13.11.2016 02:35 |
Some pic from Twitter |
| Michael Allred 19.11.2016 05:58 |
I do not believe nor will I ever believe that a studio version of "Hangman" exists, has ever existed, etc. I do not know the man who claims to own it. I have no reason to believe him in regards to its existence. Is he a liar? Is he just making this claim to goose Queen Productions? Who the hell knows? But if one were to make a bombastic claim such as this then you would think that they would offer up some tiny shread of proof that would shut everyone up for good. Yet they don't. Afterall, I have a previously unheard recording of "We Will Rock You" that has an additional verse and an extended guitar solo. You will just have to take me at my word even though there has never been any proof found anywhere in the decades since that this ever existed and my claim, in all that time amongst a few billion people on the planet, is the only thing that suggests it does. Right? |
| Negative Creep 19.11.2016 07:23 |
Apparently because he is a well known collector, who has shared stuff in the past and posted on here everyone should believe it exists on his say so. Despite never offering any proof in way of even a poxy photo and not even convincing QPL that he had it - nuff said! The usual suspects will again cry "ahh, he doesn't need to prove anything to anyone". But you should really ask yourselves why if he has it, has not a single soul ever seen even an image of the acetate? Why would there be one solitary acetate of a recording that apparently no band member remembers recording and there's no studio log of it having been recorded? I've nothing against the guy, but this bollocks has gone on long enough. |
| Nitroboy 19.11.2016 10:23 |
Negative Creep wrote:a recording that apparently no band member remembers recordingTo be fair, Brian and Roger don't remember a lot of stuff that we would otherwise think of as obvious ever-lasting memories. |