John S Stuart 13.04.2010 08:18 |
link De Lane Lea Demos FACT: I bought two versions of this tape from the same source. A master reel and a copy... Guess which version I sold - and which version I kept? I also seem to recall GB sticking his nose in sometime after the deal was completed - because he thought it was dishonest of me to sell the copy - while retaining the master - you go figure! Serious Question here: As a collector (be it CD's, coins, stamps or whatever) one can sometimes end up with doubles or even multiples of the same item. Is it therefore only me who keeps the "best" and sells or trades on the "inferior version" (even if it is in mint condition) - or as I suspect - is this the way all of us handle our duplicate items? If this is so, why would a third party get involved in a trade that had nothing to do with him, and claim "foul!" after the event? |
Jazz 78 13.04.2010 08:56 |
To answer the first part of your question... you keep whatever you think is the better quality of ANY item that you have and trade or sell off the extras. I've done it many times over through the years of collecting and see nothing wrong with it at all. As for the second part of your question... jealousy. |
Wiley 13.04.2010 14:10 |
I don't see a problem in trading/selling an "inferior" version and keeping the best one for yourself. For all we know, your inferior version might well be an upgrade for the other party so I guess as long as everyone gets what they bargained for, who cares if either one has something better in store? If I know you have a "superior" version I can offer you something better in return but ultimately it is your decision to trade for it/sell it or not. On the other hand, intentionally creating a lossy/degraded copy to trade is another story. I'm against it. Inserting audio "watermarks" of some sort in your media is a bit of a gray area for me, though. Nooooow... Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :) |
Sebastian 13.04.2010 14:36 |
Wiley wrote: Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :) Standing ovation! |
people on streets 13.04.2010 15:08 |
It all depends what kind of agreement you and RW made really. If the deal was that you would sell him your master you have to sell the master. Pacta sunt servanda. One of the oldest legal expressions in contract law. On the other hand if you and RW didn't agree on wich version you would sell, let's say the agreement was that you would sell RW 'the de Lane Lea demos' there's nothing wrong with selling the first gen copy. However, I must say if I was about to spend 1000 Euros on a recording I would make sure I was buying the master reels. Not some copy. If you would be the person who had promissed me to sell the master and I would end up with a copy you would have a serious problem. Not with the law, but with me. |
Jam Monkey 13.04.2010 16:02 |
Over the years I've ended up with many doubles, and I've always done the same thing; keep the best copy and sell the other one. As long as you are honest about the condition of the item you are selling I see no problem, it's up to the other guy to decide if he wants to buy it. |
Crazy LittleThing 13.04.2010 20:37 |
Wiley wrote: Nooooow... Selling YOUR recording to Queen Productions with a "Property of John S. Stuart" audio watermark on loop would be priceless! :) Crazy LittleThing wrote: BRILLIANT! |
pittrek 14.04.2010 01:01 |
Well, you can of course ANYTHING you like with your own property :-) |
Benn Kempster 14.04.2010 07:19 |
I guess it all depends upon what was being offered, what was accepted as offered and what was received. If the buyer had been under the impression that they were to received MASTERS, then the only way of resolving any issue is to try to find reference to MASTERS or if sale of MASTERS was aluded to in any way whatsoever in any communication between you. If they weren't, then it's potentially a language issue (trading with non-English speakers) or nothing more than jealous and greed. Sounds to me like the RW cried to GB after the event more out of jealousy than anything else in terms of the buyer wanting MASTERS and not getting them atthe budget price he had in mind. GB's a slimy little bastard who has some questionable links with various Europeans who believe being "in" with him will open the floodgates for them through trading with him. When I used to trade Who tapes across the US, I came up against a number of people who said that they had something and then, what arrived after receiving what they EXPECTED from me, simply lied. No money changed hands in that respect, but it's kind of illustrative of the mentality of some people and how deeply they CRAVE and WANT simply for the sake of it as opposed to maintaining any kind of personal standards in such things. |
scollins 14.04.2010 09:20 |
i have a disc called queen in the beginning its got over etc and it from 1971 and it says de lane lea with 5 traks on the disc it says qcd 01 is this worth anything? thanks |
Soundfreak 14.04.2010 09:43 |
scollins wrote: i have a disc called queen in the beginning its got over etc and it from 1971 and it says de lane lea with 5 traks on the disc it says qcd 01 is this worth anything? thanks <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Things like that have no fixed "worth", it's just a question of interest. If you find someone being desperate to buy it, he may pay more money, you may even find no one. And no one knows how many copies are existing. Also this particular bootleg is not the best, it plays false speed and the eq is also very lousy. The real mastertape would be worth a lot of course. But even this is debatable. |
Adam Baboolal 14.04.2010 10:09 |
I guess there's nothing bad about passing on your older copy when you have a better copy. But then, there's that other part of me that feels like having multiple versions of the same thing in various forms of quality is clogging up that market. Blurring the lines about this version or that version, etc. Does it always have to be about having the best copy for yourself and passing on something lesser to another person? Can't we all just have one definitive copy? Adam. |
Wiley 14.04.2010 10:37 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I guess there's nothing bad about passing on your older copy when you have a better copy. But then, there's that other part of me that feels like having multiple versions of the same thing in various forms of quality is clogging up that market. Blurring the lines about this version or that version, etc. Does it always have to be about having the best copy for yourself and passing on something lesser to another person? Can't we all just have one definitive copy? Adam. You do have a point with the last bit and I've known a few collectors who have that attitude. Still, there's usually a part of their collection that they are not willing to part with, and IMO that's their choice (not that you implied otherwise). When it's something material and commercially available, there's really no question, is it? A Mint copy of a portuguese "Keep yourself alive" 45 will be worth more than a Fair one. For recorded material that is only available on reel to reel tape or perhaps acetates maybe it's not that simple but the same principle could apply. Like I said in an earlier post, it's not like you're "polluting the trading pool" if you trade/sell an inferior version to the one YOU (and only you) have, unless there is a better version widely available. It would still be an upgrade to everybody else. Now, if you have the best version and then make copies of it on tape and claim they are something that they are not with the only intention of making profit, then it's dishonest. |
thomasquinn 32989 14.04.2010 10:40 |
John S Stuart wrote: Serious Question here:
As a collector (be it CD's, coins, stamps or whatever) one can sometimes end up with doubles or even multiples of the same item.
Is it therefore only me who keeps the "best" and sells or trades on the "inferior version" (even if it is in mint condition) - or as I suspect - is this the way all of us handle our duplicate items?
Pretty normal way of acting, I'd say.
If this is so, why would a third party get involved in a trade that had nothing to do with him, and claim "foul!" after the event? Because the party in question was Greg Brooks, who operates according to a logic all of his own. We hope. |
John S Stuart 14.04.2010 13:01 |
It is all academic now, but, considering the buyer paid less than a 'Bo Rhap blue vinyl', I don't think it was that bad a deal for what it was - which was a copy of the De Lane Lea demos. Also, considering the profits he made from his CD bootlegs - he actually made money on the deal - which in effect means at the end of the day, he got his tape for free. So I think he came off OK. Now, when I talk about GB's interference, I don't mean a few days, or a few weeks later. This was years afterwards when I told him I retained the best copy - it was then he cried 'foul!', and it was then I thought - what had this to do with him anyhow? I personally believe it is this 'Copy' tape which is in the archives - but I may be wrong - and that is what is at the core. |
Sebastian 14.04.2010 14:23 |
So there you have it: he's jealous about not having the best tape (or cassette, or whatever it is). |
thomasquinn 32989 14.04.2010 14:32 |
John S Stuart wrote: It is all academic now, but, considering the buyer paid less than a 'Bo Rhap blue vinyl', I don't think it was that bad a deal for what it was - which was a copy of the De Lane Lea demos. Also, considering the profits he made from his CD bootlegs - he actually made money on the deal - which in effect means at the end of the day, he got his tape for free. So I think he came off OK. Now, when I talk about GB's interference, I don't mean a few days, or a few weeks later. This was years afterwards when I told him I retained the best copy - it was then he cried 'foul!', and it was then I thought - what had this to do with him anyhow? I personally believe it is this 'Copy' tape which is in the archives - but I may be wrong - and that is what is at the core. I think Sebastian's got a point. He probably thinks you and the whole trading community should consistently trade their best, lowest generation material so that he can get his hands on it without any effort and have his supernatural hold on the masses of fans with trinkets from the archives. And here, in this case, he's sour about you having acquired the better items, as apparently (from his own ranting) you have in a multitude of cases. |
Adam Baboolal 14.04.2010 17:40 |
He's jealous? Is that really how you think, TQ? Maybe he thinks that such an item should be part of the band's archive rather than a private collector having the best copy for their own pleasure. You see why I don't like all this copy this and good/bad versions floating about. It just creates this weird subterfuge amongst people and can create bad vibes. It's very strange behaviour if you ask me. It's at times like these I thank god for people like the Dr Who fans who willingly give anything and everything towards the Dr Who archive. There's something incredibly noble about what they do. Adam. |
John S Stuart 14.04.2010 17:54 |
Why should I not have the best copy in a private collection? I paid for after all - not QPL. It's not as if I stole anything. What excatly was the last donation by a Doctor Who fan? |
Adam Baboolal 14.04.2010 18:35 |
I never argued that you shouldn't because, you can. You paid for it. But I'm getting at the idea of it. Look at this thread you created about this one thing. I'm glad cause you brought attention to it, actually. As for the last thing given to the Dr Who archive, I'm not privy to that info. Anyone here that is? Again, it was simply a point about giving something back to the show (or artist). That's all. I was just citing them (the fans) as an inspirational lot. Don't feel like I'm saying you're bad, I'm not. It just breaks my heart when I see these kind of items kept for personal collections. I have this belief that with something historical like this, I'd give it the best home for all to see. Money be damned, I want people to be happy. And not left bitching about this track being kept or that track sounding worse than this person's track, etc. etc. I'll never forget Wiley (I think that's right), who first uploaded an mp3 copy of the rare Let Me Live track pressing where the backing vocals were intact. And when asked for a flac version, he uploaded a flac version! Now, THAT was inspirational! Before he came and did that, the best copy I'd heard was a slightly hissy but grungy sounding version. I guess I'm just getting sick of that world around Queen. QZ seems to bring about more free trade which, can be enjoyed by all. But when I hear about things intentionally hoarded away somewhere while the lesser versions are put back out there? It's just depressing. It reminds me of an article where it touched on how much fine art we'll never see because it's in someone's personal collection. I know that's not the same thing because we get to hear something of the De Lane Lea demos, but maybe it's like putting up a dirty window in front of a picture. The view is not quite the same. I wish the Queen trade community would be more open and friendly towards the everyday Queen fan. How about someone giving us 1 free rare track a year? Adam. |
Sebastian 14.04.2010 20:05 |
I can't speak for John (or anybody else for that matter), but I think QP and the disrespectful archivist are the ones to blame here, not the collectors: if GB were a good bloke who didn't come to QZ to rant and insult, if QP were interested in releasing priceless material (instead of the same old Greatest Hits over and over), if GB/QP were kind enough not to lose John's tape in the (in)famous incident around a decade ago (CIIW), if GB were interested in helping out other people (without necessarily having to breach his contract or spoil upcoming [as in next year, not as in the second coming] releases) rather than expecting others to do (the hard part of) his job, if... if... if.. then I suppose people would have absolutely no problem in throwing everything to the pool and let everybody benefit from it. But things are very different. |
people on streets 14.04.2010 21:49 |
Benn Kempster wrote: I guess it all depends upon what was being offered, what was accepted as offered and what was received. If the buyer had been under the impression that they were to received MASTERS, then the only way of resolving any issue is to try to find reference to MASTERS or if sale of MASTERS was aluded to in any way whatsoever in any communication between you. If they weren't, then it's potentially a language issue (trading with non-English speakers) or nothing more than jealous and greed. Sounds to me like the RW cried to GB after the event more out of jealousy than anything else in terms of the buyer wanting MASTERS and not getting them atthe budget price he had in mind. GB's a slimy little bastard who has some questionable links with various Europeans who believe being "in" with him will open the floodgates for them through trading with him. When I used to trade Who tapes across the US, I came up against a number of people who said that they had something and then, what arrived after receiving what they EXPECTED from me, simply lied. No money changed hands in that respect, but it's kind of illustrative of the mentality of some people and how deeply they CRAVE and WANT simply for the sake of it as opposed to maintaining any kind of personal standards in such things. ************************************************************* ************************************************************* ************************************************************* 100% agreed. We're on the same level I guess. |
people on streets 14.04.2010 21:51 |
And by the way... ^&%*(( This forum! The quoting / replying functions don't work. Again! |
Wiley 14.04.2010 23:51 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I'll never forget Wiley (I think that's right), who first uploaded an mp3 copy of the rare Let Me Live track pressing where the backing vocals were intact. And when asked for a flac version, he uploaded a flac version! Now, THAT was inspirational! Before he came and did that, the best copy I'd heard was a slightly hissy but grungy sounding version. It was me indeed, Adam. I'm surprised anybody remembers that! hehe :) I actually felt great that I could share something with the rest of the fans at that time. I had downloaded so many FREE rare tracks and full concerts in lossless audio by that time... a couple of fans actually gave me some rare-ish concerts and 7" singles without asking for anything in return. It was considered to be unique (at least on CD quality) at that time and many people didn't believe I had it until I shared it on mp3. I didn't share it on FLAC at first because I don't think the format even existed or was widely known at the time. Years later someone (I believe it was YourValentine) asked if I could share it said format and I did. I'm no Mother Theresa, though... I kept the CD! :D By the way, has anybody seen one of those on eBay or somewhere else? Any idea how much it's worth? |
Benn Kempster 15.04.2010 02:07 |
Adam, re: >>It's at times like these I thank god for people like the Dr Who fans who willingly give anything and everything towards the Dr Who archive. Absolute bloody nonsense to compare the two - the BBC are MORE than happy to release whatever Dr Who material they discover. QPL release fuck all of any interst to anyone despite having this supposed "archive". I'd much prefer something to become available to all through the kindness and generosity of a fan who has gone to the time and effort of keeping something of TRUE worth safe as opposed to something being donated to the "official archive" only to then disappear without trace. After all, if they cared about the material in the first place, it wouldn't have escaped to the fan in the first place. |
pittrek 15.04.2010 02:30 |
Benn Kempster wrote: Adam, re: >>It's at times like these I thank god for people like the Dr Who fans who willingly give anything and everything towards the Dr Who archive. Absolute bloody nonsense to compare the two - the BBC are MORE than happy to release whatever Dr Who material they discover. QPL release fuck all of any interst to anyone despite having this supposed "archive". I'd much prefer something to become available to all through the kindness and generosity of a fan who has gone to the time and effort of keeping something of TRUE worth safe as opposed to something being donated to the "official archive" only to then disappear without trace. After all, if they cared about the material in the first place, it wouldn't have escaped to the fan in the first place.Does anybody know what happened to the Marquee tape ? I keep reading rumours that an audience recording was sold to the archives but GB claimed he never heard (about ) it. Was it lost ? Did it actually exist ? |
thomasquinn 32989 15.04.2010 06:26 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: He's jealous? Is that really how you think, TQ? Maybe he thinks that such an item should be part of the band's archive rather than a private collector having the best copy for their own pleasure. You see why I don't like all this copy this and good/bad versions floating about. It just creates this weird subterfuge amongst people and can create bad vibes. It's very strange behaviour if you ask me. It's at times like these I thank god for people like the Dr Who fans who willingly give anything and everything towards the Dr Who archive. There's something incredibly noble about what they do. Adam. Queen fans have no reason to contribute anything to QP, because they have consistently demonstrated bad faith. How many contributions of material have vanished without a trace into the archives, never to surface again until Montreal has been re-released at least 40x? It is not just the fans, but largely the business machine behind it, that create this atmosphere. I for one find the hostility towards Greg and QP completely legitimate. I personally would not be willing to deal with them under any circumstance, simply because you can't rely on their actually doing something for the fans with the material you provide them with. |
Benn Kempster 15.04.2010 06:30 |
Pittrek, re: >Does anybody know what happened to the Marquee tape ? I keep reading rumours that an audience recording was sold to the archives but Last I saw (unless I'm mixing this up with another Queen recording) was that it had been auctioned along with some other period memorabilia - and I think tat was in a Record Collector "News" article........to whom it went, I have no idea, but I' believe it was, again, a private collector. >GB claimed he never heard (about ) it. it's his typical denial stance when something appears that he'd just LOVE to get his hands on but hasn't the nous, money or backing to get hold of it. Just as with "Hangman" - "No, Queen never recorded it", when, in fact, we know it exists. He's kinda like the three see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys in terrestrial form. |
pittrek 15.04.2010 06:40 |
Benn Kempster wrote: Pittrek, re: >Does anybody know what happened to the Marquee tape ? I keep reading rumours that an audience recording was sold to the archives but Last I saw (unless I'm mixing this up with another Queen recording) was that it had been auctioned along with some other period memorabilia - and I think tat was in a Record Collector "News" article........to whom it went, I have no idea, but I' believe it was, again, a private collector. >GB claimed he never heard (about ) it. it's his typical denial stance when something appears that he'd just LOVE to get his hands on but hasn't the nous, money or backing to get hold of it. Just as with "Hangman" - "No, Queen never recorded it", when, in fact, we know it exists. He's kinda like the three see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys in terrestrial form.link Posted: 03 Aug 07, 08:43Mr Scully...Of course you DO have Marquee 1972. You (Queen Productions) have bought it from Richard Thompson for £2,800 back in 1996 or so...GB: I can assure you this is NOT in our archive. I will look into it further. Believe me I would remember if I'd heard this. I'll make some enquiries. |
cmsdrums 18.04.2010 16:19 |
pittrek wrote: link Posted: 03 Aug 07, 08:43 Mr Scully... Of course you DO have Marquee 1972. You (Queen Productions) have bought it from Richard Thompson for £2,800 back in 1996 or so... GB: I can assure you this is NOT in our archive. I will look into it further. Believe me I would remember if I'd heard this. I'll make some enquiries. I love GB saying ''ll make some enquiries". Ehem - he's the bloody archivist i.e. he's the one other people are supposed to go to with their queries about what's in the archive!!! |
Adam Baboolal 18.04.2010 16:36 |
No, CMS. He is a guest in the archives. If he wants to do anything, he must go through the correct channels to access the same material whenever neccesary. Did you think he had a key to a locked room?! lol Why would he lie about something in the band's official archives? The only reason I can come up with would be a deliberate move by either the band or management to deny the existence of something. Although, the 'why' question would be relevant to that kind of action! Adam. |
Sebastian 18.04.2010 22:03 |
Adam: If so, then why is he calling himself 'Queen Archivist'? Is he lying about his job? I'm honestly asking since I've got no idea. |
Benn Kempster 20.04.2010 06:58 |
Adam, re: >>Why would he lie about something in the band's official archives? Because everything he's ever said or done HERE is self-serving. Would you expect a DIFFERENT response from him given that this is EXACTLY the kind of material QPL, presumably, are gutted that they don't have? Look at their lack of attention to detail and lack of care over the transfer of ALBUM MASTERS to HR. He probably denies that anything ever went missing in that regard although Brian has gone on record with it. >>The only reason I can come up with would be a deliberate move by either the band or management to deny the existence of something. Although, the 'why' question would be relevant to that kind of action! See above. It's classic a denial response that any amateur psychoanalyst would be able to pick up on in a second. Because of their embarassment and / or jealousy that this stuff DOES exist outside of "where it should be", they / he simply deny it's existance. Cheers, Benn Kempster |
Micrówave 21.04.2010 01:23 |
I would take a different approach, John. The next time Greg calls foul, threaten to upload the master tape tracks for all to have unless they start releasing the good stuff (and paying you a 'master-tape' price). I'm sure the price agreed upon for your copy tape was a fair price reflecting what it was. That's assuming that anybody even cares about these tracks anymore. I'm sure the line would NOT wrap around the block. My kids have no interest in these tracks, and I'm closer to willing my collection to them than Queen is releasing this stuff. |
brians wig 21.04.2010 03:05 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: It's at times like these I thank god for people like the Dr Who fans who willingly give anything and everything towards the Dr Who archive. There's something incredibly noble about what they do. Adam. The only downside of that is the BBC only then put a part of this material on the DVDs... How I hope they re-release all the Dr Who's on BluRay discs simply to make use of the extra space and give the highest bitrate possible and put complete versions of studio recordings and TV interviews. The worst thing is when you send them something they haven't got (because they'd publically requested it) along with DVD copies of all your other Dr Who related recordings (interviews, trailers etc) with a letter explaining you have the original VHS copies of these clips and they are more than welcome to borrow them, and you get a nice letter back saying thanks very much and then a year later you see stuff pulled from VHS that's worse quality than what you sent them! Wankers. |
Adam Baboolal 22.04.2010 11:09 |
**Sebastian wrote: Adam: If so, then why is he calling himself 'Queen Archivist'? Is he lying about his job? I'm honestly asking since I've got no idea.** You seem to be under the impression that because someone is the archivist of a famous band, that this makes them special. Remove that tag and you'll find it's just a normal human being doing a job. The only difference is the security that the band and management want. Hence why he can't waltz in and do as he pleases. You'd have to arrange visits and book time ahead to keep track of comings and goings. It's common sense, isn't it? @Benn Kempster 1.With regards to the QArchivist person. I take anything mentioned with a big pinch of salt. I don't know who that is. Is there hard evidence to say it's actually the archivist for Queen? If so, I'll pay more attention. But tbh, I can't invest myself in something that could very well be a hoax. 2. You're asking me to believe that because of alleged embarassment they wouldn't acknowledge that their property was stolen? Really? Sounds a bit fishy that idea. I don't buy that for a second. If that was the case, since Brian openly posted about it on his website, don't you think that would embarass and maybe unsettle the management? So much so, that they'd want to leave? Or taking it further, at the time these items were lost, those in charge of those transfers being sent would be penalised and/or fired? I could go further, but won't. 3. Finally, the idea that they'd deny the existence of a song which is part of the band's history is laughable. A pathetic idea in fact. And it really exposes your intentions here. But just for fun, I'll entertain it... If this was the case, why wouldn't they try hushing down their previous band effort as Smile? In recent documentary's they've been more open about things. Even in the channel 4 documentary (I think it was CH4) where Roger speaks about going to Africa during apartheid. They're not shy about their past and they're intelligent enough to confront good and bad when necessary. So, if there is a recording out there as J.S.Stuart has already said IS out there, then I'm sure Brian and Roger would be interested. Using myself as an example here, I know there are songs of my own that I feel connected to, regardless of quality. And there is a song somewhere out there that I don't have and regardless of it's rubbishness, I'd love to have it again. To hear it and experience something I was a part of. I'm sure it's the same for nearly all musicians. Adam. |
Micrówave 23.04.2010 00:57 |
This does certainly raise a fair question. What does John (or any collector who has something like this) do with this recording? (A) Does he invite people over to his house, put on his Queen Robe from the Wembley concert, and play them his rare Queen tape while everyone wears masks, drinks Chardonnay, and eats food cooked by someone who looks a lot like Hannibal Lecter? (B) Does he rub baking soda all over himself and roll around with the tapes in a private Queen room? (C) Does it just sit in a glass case with alarms waiting for either Angelina Jolie or Peter Sellers to attempt to steal it? (D) Did he accidentally use it to record a Bon Jovi live concert and too embarrassed to admit it? (E) Does he use it in an insurance scam, by saying the tape was lost in a fire and then forced not to let it see the light of day in fear of a fraud charge? There's no law against selfishness, but with all the technology we have today, isn't there a way to "make a copy" that would sound just as good as the master? He would still own the master. And the few people still interested could enjoy the recordings. I can't think of any "lost recordings" that have gone on to be released and made millions. The new Jimi CD isn't selling very well. |
Benn Kempster 24.04.2010 07:33 |
Adam, re: >>If that was the case, since Brian openly posted about it on his website, don't you think that would embarass and maybe unsettle the management? No, Brian only posted to his site that the multi-tracks were missing. He said nothing about why they are missing and / or how they are noe NOT in the band's posession. The less-informed will immediately be left thinking that they were stolen from the band's possession as opposed to the reality that the band's management were responsible for the securit of the transfer of the tapes and that, ultimately, the band's management fucked it up. That post from Brian was carefully crafted to not give the game away. >>So much so, that they'd want to leave? Or taking it further, at the time these items were lost, those in charge of those transfers being sent would be penalised and/or fired? I could go further, but won't. Why not? I would imagine that there's some kind of disciplinary process within QPL (actually, clearly, there's not given what we know!) and due dilligence should have been paid. Put it this way, if you were responsible for the safety of the Intellectual Property at your organisation and someone else got hold of it because of YOUR lack of security / attention to detail / stupidity, what would happen? We're talking about masters here, not safety copies of mix-down tapes; masters of which only one set exists and can not be replaced. Pretty valuable stuff to my mind and would have thought there would be consequences for those responsible for their loss. >>Finally, the idea that they'd deny the existence of a song which is part of the band's history is laughable. A pathetic idea in fact. And it really exposes your intentions here. But just for fun, I'll entertain it... Didn't Brian himself post something to the effect that he had no recollection of it being recorded? >>If this was the case, why wouldn't they try hushing down their previous band effort as Smile? Don't see the relevance here. Smile was a great band with a crap vocalist. I think its a shame they didn't take the re-union a bit further in 1991 - something great could have emerged there. >>So, if there is a recording out there as J.S.Stuart has already said IS out there, then I'm sure Brian and Roger would be interested. THEY might be, but good old Jimmy Boy seemingly won't entertain the idea of recovering materuial from certain avenues which may (or may not, depending on how "concerned" you are) cause embarassment from it NOT already being in the band's posession. |
Adam Baboolal 25.04.2010 10:21 |
Fair points all round there, Benn. The only part I should comment on is Brian saying he can't remember about that track. Well, tbh, Brian seems to be fairly forgetful these days. Not loads. But at times, it has been shown that he sometimes doesn't quite remember something right or has forgotton about something completely. This is fair enough as it's impossible to remember everything you've recorded or been a part of. I like the cut of yer jib, sir! Thanks for not turning it into a mud slinging contest like so many on QZ sometimes turn to. Respect to you sir. Now, this brings about an interesting point. What's the real story of how the multi's were stolen? What concrete proof is there of what went down? Please, no hearsay or guessing. Adam. |