| Queen Archivist 22.05.2010 03:03 |
GB: I haven't been here on QZ for a while, but I just had a quick look and saw a note from John Stuart, which reads... JSS: Confession: I own the best versions of both the De Lane Lea and the BBC sessions (Inside or outside the Queen vaults) and they exist in their original raw (not sonically corrupted) master-tape (not degenerated copies) form. This is not carrot dangling - but fact. They may be uploaded here under the following conditions: First: I do not upload them - I would not know how - and I would not accept the respnsibility of taking on Queen PLC. If some brave proxy wanted to take that role upon themselves - that would be their decission - not mine. Second: They were not devalued in anyway. (ie musically equalised, MP3'd, traded or ended up on ebay). TO JOHN, I OFFER THIS (OPEN AND ABOVE BOARD SO THAT I CAN'T BE MISQUOTED)...... Firstly, to state that you have, "the best versions of both the De Lane Lea and the BBC sessions (Inside or outside the Queen vaults)" is (again) something of an assumption, because it implies that you know precisely what we have in the Queen archive, and also, quite separately, what Roger and Brian also retain in theirs!!!!! It's a ridiculous thing to claim. You don't know that. No fan knows that. Such an assumption is a bit 'much' in my opinion, but is typical of the type of unnecessary comment you make that has historically rubbed me up the wrong way. You would have been much better to have instead just said (if you must), 'the best versions of both the De Lane Lea and the BBC sessions (outside the Queen vaults) and then that would probably have been 100% accurate... not that it needed to be said even in that case. I am saying this so that people here can have an illustration of why I tend to get prickly with you JS when you make those completely blind and sweeping comments that presume too much - things you cannot know. Let's be clear here.... the ONLY people who know precisely what things lurk inside the Lloyds Bank Archive, are Lloyds Bank employees - not you, John, nor me (despite what you might claim to the contrary, for reasons best known to yourself). Likewise, the ONLY people who know precisely what De Lane Lea demo recordings lurk within Roger & Brian's (and possibly John's) private archives.... are Brian, Roger & John. But... John Deacon, not Stuart. NOT you John, not even me as the band's Archivist. Is this not obvious??? Why am I stating these blatantly obvious things again? Sorry, but it gives me the hump. It bugs me when you continually remind QZ-ers how important your collection is, and that we shouldn't ever forget it. It's not just significant, oh no, with you it has to be more than that, it always has to be something like... "the best versions of blah blah Inside or outside the Queen vaults .... that no one else has and which only you have in your secret but no not that secret treasure trove that Queen don't have, on this planet or on any other." John Stuart.... when exactly were you last in our Queen archive listening to the De Lane material???? When did you last step inside Brian's private archive??? Or Roger's???? Were you in the studio when we transferred this material??? I hope I've made my point there. It is directly relevant to this posting, and how we got to where we are. I need to make this negative point, in order to get to a positive place, without people saying that GB's irritation with JSS is completely unfounded. It is not. There are always reasons why people get so pissed off by the unnecessary assumptions, claims, inaccurate misinformation laid out by others. Putting our rather tedious history of bickering to one side for the moment (if we are ever to make any constructive progress for the benefit of Queen and Queen Fans), there has been SO MANY mentions on this site over the years, from you John, about the various rare Queen audio treasures you have in your collection. Obviously, these things are of interest; to fans, to QPL, to me, to anyone who is genuinely intent upon offering the best and most significant Queen products in the future. We ALL want that; we all long for the very best and most fascinating and historically significant rare recordings to come to the fore - and some of us have waited 30 years or more to have them quite literally within ear-shot. So, John, why don't you and I meet up and sit and talk properly about what you have, that we do not have, and what if anything (from that material) is worth doing something with??? Let's get together, cut thru all the bullshit, and try to make some proper constructive progress. It is VERY VERY SIMPLE for you to now list all the reasons why you WON'T do that, why you CAN'T do that. You can sit there and cite all the bad history you and I have, and all the ways in which you feel you have been badly treated, and so on and so forth, for the next 10 years, but ultimately it will lead nowhere. Nobody benefits that way. The likelihood is - let's be blunt - that you and I will die before your collection actually makes it onto the public stage.... and then, when you've gone to meet your Mercurial Music Maker, your family will put 6 boxes of your precious Queen 'gems' into a local boot sale - £25 the lot. These things happen!!! I regard our niggling nit-picking history as just a bit of fun, not to be taken remotely seriously. Some people may take certain issues and themselves far more seriously than they should, but I'm not one of them. I hope you're not. I would like to see what exactly it is you have, as i have stated before at least twice in the last 12 years - and discuss whether any of it is relevant to the serious work we are currently involved in within QPL. Right NOW is the most exciting period I've been involved in for QPL for the past decade or so. MANY wonderful things are being discussed. So, let's cut the crap, let's NOT have to sit now, again, and read a list of reasons why you CAN'T or WON'T meet me half way with this. That's already been done a thousand times on QZ. We know ALL that history John. Let's move FORWARDS not BACKWARDS again. I'm certain that every person here on QZ knows all the bad things about me, GB, and about QPL and how shabbily I treated John when I was responsible for one of his rare (Ibex) recordings being lost (even tho it happened via the record company)... and you also know that I apologised profusely, several times. We all know this stuff. Do we need to go there AGAIN? Must we? Can we please move on to somewhere new and positive before too many more of us snuff it before these rarities emerge? I will tell you all now.... I will ONLY move forwards from this, and I will NOT keep going over and over old stuff from years ago, because people have grudges dating back 6, 8, 10 years or more. Life is too short. We progress these important Queen rarity issues, or we shut up. Fair enough??? John... do you want to make proper serious progress for the good of all Queen projects (potentially, hopefully), or do you want to stay in the past, making bugger all progress???? I see you have offered up 'your' De Lane Lea Queen sessions for general grabs. I'm not getting into that. I'll instead stay, with a similar motivation in mind, let's talk and see where we can go with it. This ALSO is not carrot dangling - but a genuine offer/suggestion. GB (Queen Archivist) |
| A Word In Your Ear 22.05.2010 05:34 |
"Carrot dangling" you say Greg!!!! Year after year we get those Demo's played at the conventions, Yes, it's great to hear them at the convention & to have poor inferior copies with "property of Queen Productions" running through them. But I as many will say, we would much rather have the real deal in the "Boxed set" if it ever happens. I think my "box" lowered into the ground will happen first!!!! But I can't blame you Greg, if I had your job (he say's green with envy, lol) I wouldn't be in a rush to get any project finished quickly. All I can say is maybe, Jim, Brian, Roger, may release something worthwhile now and again to keep the fans happy, who I might say have spent a lot of money over the years on the product called "Queen". I have read your statement to John S saying It's at an exciting time at this period, hopefully something will get released sometime in the near future. I agree with you Greg, life is too short & you and John S should bury the hatchet, but you can't blame John S for keeping things close to his chest, after all, it's what QPL has been doing for years. Best Wishes... |
| inu-liger 22.05.2010 05:56 |
I imagine they're now trying to get wheels in motion now that Queen's signed over to Universal, and like I've said before I highly doubt Universal will be content on spending nth amount of contractual money just by rehashing the old catalogue repeatedly - they WILL want new product I'm sure! And hopefully new product will translate to box sets that actually WILL appeal to fans, casual or collector! |
| Negative Creep 22.05.2010 05:58 |
If John has the master, as I believe he has stated on here, then surely he DOES have the best version? |
| Penetration_Guru 22.05.2010 06:41 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Some provocative stuff that will muddy the waters of the message he's trying to get across Putting our rather tedious history of bickering to one side for the moment (now that I've had the last word), there has been SO MANY mentions on this site over the years, from you John, about the various rare Queen audio treasures you have in your collection. So let's talk about them, you and me, without any previous agenda. GB (Queen Archivist) Summarised. |
| Benn Kempster 22.05.2010 07:10 |
Greggy Boy, re: >>So, John, why don't you and I meet up and sit and talk properly about what you have, that we do not have, and what if anything (from that material) is worth doing something with??? Let's get together, cut thru all the bullshit, and try to make some proper constructive progress. Bada BING! There it is - the offer to meet up in the hope that you and / or QPL can get hold of stuff that they don't have. It was only a matter of time until you slithered out from beneath the cow parsley and commented on John's offer of uploading the BBC / De Lane Lea material here - the surprising thing is that it's taken you so long to devise an angle from which to make it appear as though you and the band / QPL actually DO have this material. What an embarassment (and financial loss) to QPL if such great quality stuff were to appear here given that a complete BBC release was mooted back in 1991 and STILL, all we've seen is pre-existing material released as bonus tracks on CD singles.........surely, if they HAVE the material, there'd be nothing to stop it coming out as BBC sessions are collectable OUTSIDE of the Queen community - there's a huge market for it. |
| Crazy LittleThing 22.05.2010 11:38 |
Oh. Is it THAT time of year again? |
| andreas_mercury 22.05.2010 12:13 |
i know to a fact that this john man is merely alias and a liar .... he has nothing but that things he downloads from the hub |
| philip storey 22.05.2010 13:35 |
This is exactly the reason why so many die hard Queen fans have become a lot more interested in other bands who give the fans what they really want. Just look at Judas Priest's British Steel box set, it looks great has 3 discs and sounds fantastic.What do we get? More fucking greatest hits to last a lifetime. It matters not if Priest are your cup of tea,the fact is they at least give the true fans something new.Queen Productions have squeezed the orange dry untill there is nothing left ,but still they manage to get a little more. This is not what dear Freddie would have wanted and lets face it he was the guy who pulled it all together in the first place.So many people have lived off what Freddie did during his time with Queen it just is not true.Freddie would never have forgotten the true fans like myself who were there at the start.Is this really what Brian and Roger want?Will the last person to leave the room ,please switch off the lights. |
| Micrówave 22.05.2010 13:36 |
I don't think so, Andreas. But it is possible that in some alternate reality that John Stuart / Greg Brooks is a Jeckyll & Hyde thing caused by mass amounts of Crown Royal. See John is the Queen Archivist. He lives in the Queen vaults and becomes overwhelmed at times by the amount of 70s concerts in stunning digital quality. After a few hours, and a few pints, he "snaps" and becomes Greg Brooks for a couple of hours... posting on Queen fan sites, challenging himself to send himself original masters, and downloading porn. It's okay, we all do it. The next morning, the John side takes over not realizing what fully happened the night before. It goes on, day after day, year after year, until John decides to move to Montana and become a religious fundamentalist shunning all rock music. He'll put out a couple of John Tesh style CDs recorded simply of a marimba and voice. |
| Saint Jiub 22.05.2010 15:28 |
Why would anyone allow Greg or QPL to sift through the "Wreakage" again after QPL and its employees repeatly demonstrate that they cannot be trusted. |
| cmsdrums 22.05.2010 15:41 |
Negative Creep wrote: If John has the master, as I believe he has stated on here, then surely he DOES have the best version? Absolutely. If John DOES have a master copy Greg, then even if there were two master copies taken and the other copy is in the Queen archives, then that Queen copy is not better in quality than John's, merely the same. I think that John could have possibly worded his info to say that he has 'a master copy, and therefore no better version exists anywhere else', but that is just semantics. You may be able to dispute his claim that he has a better version than Queen has, but if he has a master then you equally cannot try to intimate that Queen has a better quality copy than John (which I doubt, because otherwise you wouldn't be here effectively trying to ask for a copy) whilst trying to save face and by not openly asking for it. If, as your claim says, this post is to be open and frank, can you please tell us here and now if Queen (or associated parties) has a master copy of this material? If yes, then we know that you and John (if he has one) have equally good copies, if not, then we know that John (if he has one) has the better copy. Simples! |
| Soundfreak 22.05.2010 16:28 |
Micrówave wrote: I don't think so, Andreas. But it is possible that in some alternate reality that John Stuart / Greg Brooks is a Jeckyll & Hyde thing caused by mass amounts of Crown Royal. See John is the Queen Archivist. He lives in the Queen vaults and becomes overwhelmed at times by the amount of 70s concerts in stunning digital quality. After a few hours, and a few pints, he "snaps" and becomes Greg Brooks for a couple of hours... posting on Queen fan sites, challenging himself to send himself original masters, and downloading porn. It's okay, we all do it. The next morning, the John side takes over not realizing what fully happened the night before. It goes on, day after day, year after year, until John decides to move to Montana and become a religious fundamentalist shunning all rock music. He'll put out a couple of John Tesh style CDs recorded simply of a marimba and voice. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I like that approach. Being new to watching those "characters" act, I also had the impression that there is something wrong in that story. But at last it's quite entertaining.... I was curious how "John" would get out of this story of making his "master-recordings" available on the internet. The fact that nothing showed up within seven weeks was more than interesting. But this new step of "possible negotiations" with Queen Productions could lead to an elegant way out of this "tricky situation". Everyone will then understand that "he" can't put the tapes on the net...........when in fact this whole story was just made up.... |
| scollins 22.05.2010 16:35 |
if greg brook has got a perfect version 1 got from a man in the business all it says is delalane session and on disc its says QCD01 ITs perfect and i got losts more also greg what about freddie and barry gibb singing play the game whens that coming out if is pure class also let me live with rod stewart? |
| Josh Henson 22.05.2010 17:45 |
Does anyone REALLY care? QPL have made it VERY clear that they don't intend to relase any new material or anything remotely interesting - and singles box sets that everyone already owns all the songs digitally already (or almost all of them) don't really amount to shit. Greatest Hits I (version 24.9) will only grab a few more fans - I think 'Absolute Shit' Greatest Hits proved that. John, I tihnk it's cool that you potentially own this stuff but why talk about it if no one will ever hear it but yourself? Release the music so everyone can enjoy it. If you're not going to, then why these little tiffs with the Archivist? It's pointless. He's about as useful as tits on a boar. BTW, does anyone know what the year is? 2010. By my calculations, it is Queen's 40th anniversary. Any bet they will release something MONUMENTAL? Probably not. They blew that chance last year when they could have released a revamped Live Killers w/ the addition of the songs they left off the set list and some video footage. Whatever happened to Brian's talk about Hammy 75??? Queen is dead and so is their creativity and anyone's marketing creativity surrounding them. |
| Soundfreak 23.05.2010 03:25 |
Josh Henson wrote: Does anyone REALLY care? QPL have made it VERY clear that they don't intend to relase any new material or anything remotely interesting - and singles box sets that everyone already owns all the songs digitally already (or almost all of them) don't really amount to shit. Greatest Hits I (version 24.9) will only grab a few more fans - I think 'Absolute Shit' Greatest Hits proved that. John, I tihnk it's cool that you potentially own this stuff but why talk about it if no one will ever hear it but yourself? Release the music so everyone can enjoy it. If you're not going to, then why these little tiffs with the Archivist? It's pointless. He's about as useful as tits on a boar. BTW, does anyone know what the year is? 2010. By my calculations, it is Queen's 40th anniversary. Any bet they will release something MONUMENTAL? Probably not. They blew that chance last year when they could have released a revamped Live Killers w/ the addition of the songs they left off the set list and some video footage. Whatever happened to Brian's talk about Hammy 75??? Queen is dead and so is their creativity and anyone's marketing creativity surrounding them. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Music is a business - never ever forget about that! It's obvious that with EMI being in trouble for years now they would not give them anything "new" from their archives. Cause this archive is their only trump for any future negotiations, contracts... whatever. Once their archive is published, then it's over. And it's logical that they will stretch these releases for as long as possible. |
| Benn Kempster 23.05.2010 03:59 |
Josh, re: >Does anyone REALLY care? QPL have made it VERY clear that they don't intend to relase any new material or anything remotely interesting - and singles box sets that everyone already owns all the songs digitally already (or almost all of them) don't really amount to shit. Greatest Hits I (version 24.9) will only grab a few more fans - I think 'Absolute Shit' Greatest Hits proved that. Yes, they do. Queen is OUR band and the legacy is being "royally" fucked up by the likes of Brooks, Jim Beach and all who have so poorly advised Brian and Roger since Freddie's death. Queen used to be a brand that both demanded and gave higy quality. It is now a brand that is being used by a certain few to ensure that their bank balances never fall below a certain level. If he were still alive and this had been visible to him, Freddie would have quit the band in disgust. But, no, wait, here's a thing; he'd never have let it get to this state in the first place.......... |
| Dane 23.05.2010 04:29 |
So basicly Greg is asking John to consider selling his best quality stuff to him for future release. That's reading between all the bullshit. To John: Don't. Not until someone will upload it here on QZ. Otherwise we'll never get to hear it. And if it will be released anyway, then I won't be a bastard not to buy it properly. I'm still a collector at heart. |
| Rami 23.05.2010 06:06 |
One can only hope that John will ignore this "offer"... |
| brians wig 23.05.2010 06:41 |
With regards John holding (or not holding) the best copy of the De Lane Lea demos, consider this information gleaned over the years and decide yourselves what is the truth: 1) John says he has the master tape. That's always possible, especially as it was recorded while Queen were a nobody and it's quite common in the TV industry in those days for tapes of shows to either "go missing" or be copied, so why not audio tapes in the record industry? 2) Unless things have changed, the only copy of the demos that Brian held in his personal archive were on acetate. There was an article somewhere around 10-15 years ago where Brian stated that technology had moved on sufficiently for him to get a decent sound recording from this acetate. Unless it was made up, that, if nothing else, proves that the only copy Queen had of their demos was a record! 3) The German collector who John sold his "sub-master" tape to in the 90's has always told the story of how he gave a copy of that tape to QPL (who apparantly didn't have it!!!!) and subsequently gained permisssion from Jim Beach to 'bootleg' said tape, which is where we all got those demos from in the first place. Okay, you lot have to decide how much of this is true or not! So, to summerise, if Brian only has an acetate of the demos, but John Stuart has an industry reel to reel tape (and let's face it, there's no way that tape would have been a copy from an acetate!), then I think it's fair to say that John certainly has A master, if not THE master.... |
| Negative Creep 23.05.2010 06:49 |
brians wig wrote: 3) The German collector who John sold his "sub-master" tape to in the 90's has always told the story of how he gave a copy of that tape to QPL (who apparantly didn't have it!!!!) and subsequently gained permisssion from Jim Beach to 'bootleg' said tape, which is where we all got those demos from in the first place. Okay, you lot have to decide how much of this is true or not! I find it hard to believe Jim Beach gave anyone permission to bootleg ANYTHING at any point. Even if it was an alternative to having to pay the collector for it - I just can't see him ever agreeing to something like that. |
| John S Stuart 23.05.2010 07:26 |
BBC is out of my hands. I copied MY versions and posted the disc (as promised) to another Queenzoner. What that 'zoner does with the disc is outside my control, just as the bootleg of De Lane Lea was out of my control also. As for history; I seem to recall being in EXACTLY the same position over 10 years ago. QPL asked me to provide a copy of Wreckage - which I did in good faith. First: The tape was stolen. (It was NOT returned to me as promised) Second: It was widely bootlegged - and I made not one penny from those illegal discs. Three: I did not recieve an official appology - ever. Four: I had to buy my own boxset. What was it Ian Hunter said; "Once Bitten Twice Shy?". |
| inu-liger 23.05.2010 07:56 |
John: In your honest opinion, would even a belated official reply from the parties involved in the embarrassing tape blunder possibly help towards re-invigorating any involvement on your part in resuming providing QPL with highly valuable tapes, acetates and the such needed towards making a more complete collectible box set of rarities that all Queen fans will finally be able to enjoy? Honestly, I wish to see you AND Greg somehow find a way to patch things up soon enough, because 10 years already is a long time to be angry over matters like the stolen tapes, however understandable your anger is, but even if Greg risks his job to garner an official apology from the aforementioned parties involved in the blunder, that in itself would be a positive step. And there is an undeniable fact that the rest of us Queen fans who don't enjoy the fruits of being part of an 'elitist' circle desperately WANT to hear these songs, even if it means shelling out good hard-earned money to do so, because you know what, THAT is the type of we want, not rehashed GH shit over and over! |
| andreas_mercury 23.05.2010 08:12 |
all ridiculous discussion .... the tapes were never john's he was just inpossession of them ... he was not on recordings, he was not the engineer or in the record company. oh so I suppose i find rare egyptian artifact fall off the back of museum truck and keep it, and "it's mine" but im an asshole if I do that .... |
| Negative Creep 23.05.2010 08:33 |
The band can't claim any ownership of the physical tapes unless they can claim they actually owned them AND they were stolen - which is a bit difficult even if that had ever been the case. QPL etc. still own the rights to what's actually stored on the tapes though. |
| inu-liger 23.05.2010 08:38 |
andreas_mercury wrote: all ridiculous discussion .... the tapes were never john's he was just inpossession of them ... he was not on recordings, he was not the engineer or in the record company. oh so I suppose i find rare egyptian artifact fall off the back of museum truck and keep it, and "it's mine" but im an asshole if I do that .... =============================== Legally speaking, they WERE his. He bought it under apparently legal conditions through private circles. He HAD a conditional agreement with QPL that he would loan the tapes to them long enough for them to make their own copies for use in sanctioned releases. However, through a serious of embarrassing blunders, not only did they "lose" the tape, but somewhere along the way, someone made their own copies and made a killing selling pirate CD-R's at the conventions, for which John received neither compensation nor an apology. What Greg should do on his part, and I don't believe it's too late really, is try as honestly hard as possible to garner a belated apology from the people responsible for the blunders, with an additional apology for the cold shoulder given to John as well. |
| inu-liger 23.05.2010 08:40 |
Negative Creep wrote: The band can't claim any ownership of the physical tapes unless they can claim they actually owned them AND they were stolen - which is a bit difficult even if that had ever been the case. QPL etc. still own the rights to what's actually stored on the tapes though. ============================================= Whereas, if Mr. Stuart has IN WRITING a copy of the agreement between him and QPL, he could in theory have legal grounds to sue them for breach of contract and theft. Whether his case still falls within any statutes of limitations is another question. |
| Negative Creep 23.05.2010 08:58 |
inu-liger wrote: not only did they "lose" the tape, but somewhere along the way, someone made their own copies and made a killing selling pirate CD-R's at the conventions, for which John received neither compensation nor an apology Why would there be an official apology - it sounds like a deliberately confrontational action. The tape isn't returned AND gets bootleged? lol It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion it was deliberate and essentially a major "fuck you". And was the tape actually sent to EMI or QPL? It just seems a bit odd that EMI would have been involved in receiving and returning a tape they wouldn't have had anything to do with, as they have no involvement in the band's archive. (What's happened to the quoting on this forum?) |
| Daniel Nester 23.05.2010 10:04 |
Where is JSS's response for the sit-down? Tired of watching pissing matches. Where is the sit-down? Can't JSS just watch them being transferred, while he waits, and he gets what he has back? I have been inside the Sony headquarters (former Sony headquarters) and watched master tapes being transferred. It was, like, a Pointer Sisters LP, but that's beside the point. My point is that why can't these two people meet, figure out what JSS really has that's unique, and do it? Greg B here laid out why JSS gets on his nerves. So JSS: Why won't you meet up? Is it a matter of affording airfare? I have some pretty good SkyMiles saved up; I'd donate them. Anyone else want to pony up? |
| brians wig 23.05.2010 10:31 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Greg B here laid out why JSS gets on his nerves. So JSS: Why won't you meet up? Is it a matter of affording airfare? I have some pretty good SkyMiles saved up; I'd donate them. Anyone else want to pony up? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it's more likely that John has better things to do with his life. There comes a point in any long running argument that one of the parties reaches that point where they can't be bothered anymore and they realise there are more important things in Heaven or on Earth than pointless arguments that go round in circles... Thanks in advance for the BBC Sessions John. I hope you are kind enough to donate a copy of the demos to this forum one day. |
| John S Stuart 23.05.2010 10:41 |
Lets get to the heart of the matter. "Golder's Green Hippodrome" Queen recorded for this live for the BBC. This was done using BBC eqipment and BBC facilities. The BBC owned the one and only master tape - not Queen. The only reason the gig was recorded in the first place, was because the BBC could repeat the radio concert at some time. After a number of years the BBC (under licensing agreement) decided (in their wisdom) to destroy the master tape. Even though earlier (edited) transcription discs were made from this tape, the full recording was never released. Under the BBC's "search and destroy" policy of the 1980's, the tape was actually trashed and theoretically "destroyed". In point of fact the recording was salvaged (with the full permission and approval of the Corporation) by an engineer - who later contacted me - and whom I bought this tape from. If I were to burn this - a better quality version would NOT exist, but, according to Greg, this is somehow not the case! No better version CAN exist ANYWHERE (or in any Queen, Brian or Roger's vaults) because THIS IS THE MASTER TAPE. I have NEVER denied that I own very rare pieces. I have been very vocal towards Queen Productions and have PLEADED with them to meet me. It is THEY whom are the stumbling block - not I. I refuse to deal with Greg personally. I do not trust him, there is too much history between us, and in all the communications I have ever been involved in, it has always been a one way street. In effect "I show him mine" but he "does not show his", and for this I am always cast (in Freddie's word) as a Pr*ck teaser, and as such, deserve to be to be treated with contempt. So let me turn the tables: Queen Productions are WELCOME to ANYTHING in my collection. They can have FULL access to what I own, without reservation. My PM on this forum is public, my email is public. However, I refuse to deal with middle-men. So I advertise here - If I am Personally contacted by Queen Productions, Brian May, Roger Taylor, or John Deacon, (and I am sure that CAN be arranged), and if they provide me with the guarantees that were promised - but not provided for my Wreckage material, I guarantee here and now that I will deal under these circumstances. PROMISE. In my worst Lloyde Grossman impersonation: "Queen PLC - It's over to you". |
| John S Stuart 23.05.2010 10:43 |
Brian's Wig: Thanks in advance for the BBC Sessions John. I hope you are kind enough to donate a copy of the demos to this forum one day. As far as I know - this is all in hand. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 23.05.2010 13:22 |
brians wig wrote: 3) The German collector who John sold his "sub-master" tape to in the 90's has always told the story of how he gave a copy of that tape to QPL (who apparantly didn't have it!!!!) and subsequently gained permisssion from Jim Beach to 'bootleg' said tape, which is where we all got those demos from in the first place. Okay, you lot have to decide how much of this is true or not! negatve creep wrote: I find it hard to believe Jim Beach gave anyone permission to bootleg ANYTHING at any point. Even if it was an alternative to having to pay the collector for it - I just can't see him ever agreeing to something like that. To clear this out. This was a dutch collector. And he claimed he had the master tape.I'd visited him at the time, shortly after the cd was made. I got the 2 versions of the cd from him that day. He said it was much trouble getting a tape converted to a cd. I laughed at the man and asked im what could be so difficult to make a transfer from a music cassette to a cd. HE explained me that this was not a music cassette but a different kind of tape.And that needed a special kind of tapeplayer only availble in studio's. So silly me I believed it was a music tape.But it was some kind of a studio tape (still don;t know the namesof the volumes used in a studio.... If I remeber correctly :he told me specific that he paid a huge amount of money for it, but did not mention the real amount of money.I didn't asked for the correct amount of payment as well. I'm not convinced , but I believe I;d remebered he bought it from some auction house, or something simular like that. The guy had the bootleg cd made in Italy, in mid 90's and the bootlegs were brought to holland from italy. From holland he distrubuted the boot cd. Somehow Jim Beach noticed the bootleg cd and wrote a "thank you"letter to him. I held this letter in my own hands. So he was not given permission before making the boot cd. But he got a letter while the cd was out. The letter contained a thank you from JB and the band. The band and JB where very excited that he found this (master?)tape , as Queen lost and almost forgotten about the tape. Which may indicate Queens vaults is lacking this tape. At least 1996 ! |
| andreas_mercury 23.05.2010 13:54 |
all i know in this thread os i can almost smell Archivits anorak, he must be a smelly man |
| Benn Kempster 23.05.2010 14:03 |
All this just adds to Greg's embarassment on creating this thread. Sounds to me like he's spent an age thinking of how to "get in" here on this topc and, once he's figured his angle out, he's just made a load of generic claims about provenance and what "he believes" is in the archive, only to then have his theories trashed with evidence to the contrary. I'd be surprised if we see a post from him in the near future; the shame must be overwhealming. |
| John S Stuart 23.05.2010 14:05 |
Ghostwithasmile: The tape Mr. R had converted was a 7" reel - to - reel, which was a standard home recording format in the 1960/70's. It was NOT a studio format. And yes; it was me who sold it to him. Also; Jim Beach allegedly wrote a "thank you" note to Mr. R for releasing a bootleg, yet (according to another thread) the same Mr. Beech (or his official representatives) can't be ars*ed to contact me re obtaining unreleased material? Why is it that QPL sound more like a cowboy outfit the more I hear about them? |
| cmsdrums 23.05.2010 14:46 |
John S Stuart wrote: No better version CAN exist ANYWHERE (or in any Queen, Brian or Roger's vaults) because THIS IS THE MASTER TAPE. I have NEVER denied that I own very rare pieces. I have been very vocal towards Queen Productions and have PLEADED with them to meet me. It is THEY whom are the stumbling block - not I. I refuse to deal with Greg personally. I do not trust him, there is too much history between us, and in all the communications I have ever been involved in, it has always been a one way street. In effect "I show him mine" but he "does not show his", and for this I am always cast (in Freddie's word) as a Pr*ck teaser, and as such, deserve to be to be treated with contempt. So let me turn the tables: Queen Productions are WELCOME to ANYTHING in my collection. They can have FULL access to what I own, without reservation. My PM on this forum is public, my email is public. However, I refuse to deal with middle-men. So I advertise here - If I am Personally contacted by Queen Productions, Brian May, Roger Taylor, or John Deacon, (and I am sure that CAN be arranged), and if they provide me with the guarantees that were promised - but not provided for my Wreckage material, I guarantee here and now that I will deal under these circumstances. PROMISE. In my worst Lloyde Grossman impersonation: "Queen PLC - It's over to you". There you have it - case closed. Thanks John. Although I don't know you personally, from years of reading and interacting with your posts here, I have no reason to doubt you; your history leaves me in no doubt that you are genuine. i totally agree with your stance of not dealing with Greg. Even without your personal history with him, why on earth should you be expected to deal with someone who openly, in fact actively, tries to accentuate the point that he is NOT employed by Queen Productions, but merely sub-contracted to do some work for them every now and then? An equivalent scenario would be if I wanted to buy a football club, would I go directly to the club itself (the owner, the Chairman etc..), or would I go to the kit man? He might know exactly what old football boots and bits of antique kit are held in the locked changing rooms, and he can get excited about it all by himself knowing that no-one will ever see this, but he has bugger all to do with any decision making and couldn't have anything to do with any deal (in fact he might pocket my money for himself!) Greg himself has always makes a point to emphasis that he has no say in what happens in the Queen camp, but merely makes suggestions to Brian, Roger, Jim (and John). Perhaps he should suggest to them that they contact you.??? If you deal with him and you get the same experience as before, what's to stop QPL turing around and saying 'sorry, we didn't ask this chap to deal with you, and we know nothing of your dealings with him, so we don't know what happened to your tape'. As usual, Greg has posted an open and public request, but yet again not responded to some genuine responses and questions. I think this is now done...... |
| Negative Creep 23.05.2010 15:23 |
ghostwithasmile wrote: The guy had the bootleg cd made in Italy, in mid 90's and the bootlegs were brought to holland from italy. From holland he distrubuted the boot cd. Somehow Jim Beach noticed the bootleg cd and wrote a "thank you"letter to him. I held this letter in my own hands. So he was not given permission before making the boot cd. But he got a letter while the cd was out. The letter contained a thank you from JB and the band. The band and JB where very excited that he found this (master?)tape , as Queen lost and almost forgotten about the tape. Which may indicate Queens vaults is lacking this tape. At least 1996 ! Ha - so QPL only have the bootleg CD as a source? Maybe they contacted them to buy the ape off them after the event. But then - how did QPL know who pressed the CD up to apparently fire off a letter to them thanking them for essentially ripping them off? Sounds a bit odd. |
| Negative Creep 23.05.2010 15:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: Ghostwithasmile: The tape Mr. R had converted was a 7" reel - to - reel, which was a standard home recording format in the 1960/70's. It was NOT a studio format. If it was 1/4" tape (the width of the tape - not the size of the spool) - then it would have been a "studio format". Multitrack and master mixes are often stored on 1 and 2" tape - but copies would often be recorded on 1/4" tape - which is what a lot of archive releases are sourced from. |
| John S Stuart 23.05.2010 15:28 |
As stated in another thread: A tad disapointed with your reply in that I too have donated to this forum (with yet more to come) and I have openly stated I am willing to "do business" with any "official" Queen representative. That is NOT bitter. In fact I can not see see how I can be MORE helpful - unless I pyhsically drive down to London and hand in my collection in person! What more do you want me to do? I have "been called out" by a middle-man, with whom (from previous experience) I do not want to deal with, and do not trust. That sir, is MY perogative. Just as it is my perogative not to trust Gary Glitter as my babysitter. He can apologise all he wants, but he would NEVER babysit for me again. Sometimes, one bad experience is all it takes. Why is that so difficult to understand? On the other hand; this forum is public. My email is public. I am NOT a MI5, Brian May or Salmond Rushdie type figure. If Queen PL can not afford me the courtesy of dealing direct (which I think would be the professional solution), then they can sod-off. So for the sake of all Queen fans around the world, let me say this once, let me say it clear, and allow me to shout from the rooftops: I AM HERE. QPL, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME ANY TIME. I WILL NOT BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO ANY ANTHOLOGIES OR ARCHIVAL MATERIALS. Sorry for the rant, but I hope that I have made my position crystal clear. Any attempt to discolour, misquote, or deliberately miss the point is outside my sphere of influence, and cannot be laid at my doorstep. |
| Crazy LittleThing 23.05.2010 16:19 |
Greg: I've been thinking about this open invitation of yours to John, and I keep coming to the same conclusion: Why would he possibly want to meet with you? What's in it for him? The risk versus reward ratio doesn't present him with a much of a choice. Things didn't turn out very well for him the last time. It seems that he has everything to lose while you have something to gain. It's admirable that you appear to want to mend fences with John, but your opening move only offers him more risks, and nothing in return--certainly not his property that was stolen while in your possession. Perhaps a better opening move would have been the return of his property. --Cindy |
| Daniel Nester 23.05.2010 20:22 |
I dunno. Face to face meetings happen with enemies all the time. Cf. Middle East peace process, North and South Korea. People do meet. I think I missing some of what people object about Greg's posts. On the one hand, he's a punching bag/proxy for our not getting good box sets. On the other, they/he stole a Wreckage demo from JSS? Or JSS is saying Queen Productions are liars? The only way this plays out is if JSS puts together mp3s of his own stuff, remastered properly. Leak it. Or: he meets with Greg's secretary. Which would be hott. |
| pittrek 24.05.2010 01:14 |
ghostwithasmile wrote:Thanks for the infobrians wig wrote: 3) The German collector who John sold his "sub-master" tape to in the 90's has always told the story of how he gave a copy of that tape to QPL (who apparantly didn't have it!!!!) and subsequently gained permisssion from Jim Beach to 'bootleg' said tape, which is where we all got those demos from in the first place. Okay, you lot have to decide how much of this is true or not!negatve creep wrote: I find it hard to believe Jim Beach gave anyone permission to bootleg ANYTHING at any point. Even if it was an alternative to having to pay the collector for it - I just can't see him ever agreeing to something like that.To clear this out. This was a dutch collector. And he claimed he had the master tape.I'd visited him at the time, shortly after the cd was made. I got the 2 versions of the cd from him that day. He said it was much trouble getting a tape converted to a cd. I laughed at the man and asked im what could be so difficult to make a transfer from a music cassette to a cd. HE explained me that this was not a music cassette but a different kind of tape.And that needed a special kind of tapeplayer only availble in studio's. So silly me I believed it was a music tape.But it was some kind of a studio tape (still don;t know the namesof the volumes used in a studio.... If I remeber correctly :he told me specific that he paid a huge amount of money for it, but did not mention the real amount of money.I didn't asked for the correct amount of payment as well. I'm not convinced , but I believe I;d remebered he bought it from some auction house, or something simular like that. The guy had the bootleg cd made in Italy, in mid 90's and the bootlegs were brought to holland from italy. From holland he distrubuted the boot cd. Somehow Jim Beach noticed the bootleg cd and wrote a "thank you"letter to him. I held this letter in my own hands. So he was not given permission before making the boot cd. But he got a letter while the cd was out. The letter contained a thank you from JB and the band. The band and JB where very excited that he found this (master?)tape , as Queen lost and almost forgotten about the tape. Which may indicate Queens vaults is lacking this tape. At least 1996 ! |
| John S Stuart 24.05.2010 02:19 |
If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans. |
| andreas_mercury 24.05.2010 03:00 |
solutions to this are on so obvious!!!!! just share everything then that QPL will have nothing legs to stand on. share crappy the quality so that you still are mister powerful with top quality in your pockets |
| inu-liger 24.05.2010 04:35 |
andreas_mercury wrote: solutions to this are on so obvious!!!!! just share everything then that QPL will have nothing legs to stand on. share crappy the quality so that you still are mister powerful with top quality in your pockets ========================= Andreas, GTFO. Sharing his collection in the lowest of lossy quality is NOT what we want! |
| inu-liger 24.05.2010 04:37 |
John S Stuart wrote: If anyone here would like to contact QPL on my behalf, please feel free to do so. I have no problem with QPL, or sharing anything with the fans. ========================= I would gladly take that up, if only I knew where to begin on how to contact them. You know where to find me John, just shoot me all the details I need (contact info, what you have that QPL don't have, etc.) Perhaps I could go a step further and offer my services to be your own personal back-up archivist of sorts, LOL :-P :-) |
| andreas_mercury 24.05.2010 05:53 |
you to be a dumb shit on this topic makes no sense because you are smart guy in other threads ..... you say just because knebworth 8mm video is bad quality we just wait for a better quality that prob doesnt exist anywhere any way? dumbass we just take what we can get, if it means to me low quality I say we even go for it and remember to say a big thanks to the legend who eventually does it for us. |
| inu-liger 24.05.2010 05:59 |
Piss off. I was talking about campaigning to get the stuff ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT released out there in the best quality possible, ie. FLAC instead of god-awful MP3. And of course the quality of the relevant tape/vinyl/CD sources, whatever they're from, will only be as good as the source allows, and that's a no-brainer really - short of possible remastering to remove audible defects to allow for better quality while avoiding introducing artifacts into the mix. |
| pittrek 24.05.2010 06:03 |
knebworth 8mm video??? Did I miss something ? |
| inu-liger 24.05.2010 06:35 |
pittrek wrote: knebworth 8mm video ??? Did I miss something ? ======= Seconded. I thought there were only audience VHS recordings? |
| theCro 24.05.2010 08:45 |
8mm video?!?!? give us more info! |
| The Real Wizard 24.05.2010 10:40 |
He's probably just referring to the video shot from the audience... which might be 8mm, or might not. It's probably not, as 8mm was being weeded out in the 80s in favour of better technology. |
| Adam Baboolal 24.05.2010 12:28 |
Hey all. The more I read about this, the more I wish to be part of the solution. John, you know of me as the guy who you had a wee incident with on QZ nearly 10 years ago! lol I would hope you could see past that minor incident. That out of the way, here's my proposal... I was at the Glasgow SAE college back in 04-06 and they had an awesome tape machine in one of the studios there. Now, if you have items on tape, I could get them transferred where need be. It also helps that one of the teachers I was taught by, is a Queen fan! And the best part is, the transfers would have nothing to do with QPL. I can also promise you that I would be present with any materials and not allow anything to be kept or taken. Any items would be right under my nose at all times. However, this is the other part of things. If we can arrange something with QPL, then let's do this. And that's why I mentioned getting things transferred by a third party, through myself. What do you think? Regards, Adam Baboolal. |
| John S Stuart 24.05.2010 12:40 |
Thanks for the reply Adam, but the problem is not one of Archiving. I have back-up copies of back up copies - so this material is safe and secure. The real problem is for QPL to work with me directly and not through a middle man I do not trust. Is that really to much to ask for? |
| andreas_mercury 24.05.2010 12:46 |
re: knebworth i was only being a hypothetical on that .... i was just saying, take what you can get and don't cry to quality ... i don't care if face it alone was lossless because i have heard hte song now and am happy with that.... |
| Adam Baboolal 24.05.2010 12:51 |
Fair enough, tapes be damned :P But how do you want the whole QPL thing to play out? I'm curious about how you want this to proceed. How do they find out about your willingness to get things set up with your collection and what not? Do we (QZ folk) have to do this? Adam. |
| GinjaNinja 24.05.2010 13:01 |
Personally, I think the main aspects to consider are that the transfer is done to the highest possible quality, and that John’s tapes are not lost (again). That would be unforgivable, and a great loss. In my opinion, he should oversee the entire process, always being close to the tapes and being able to withdraw at any time, should he think that the safety of his tapes is compromised. If he can spare the time, then this would be the ideal solution. I believe that it is very noble of him to offer to share his collection, despite some of the bad blood towards him and the grief he has been given by Greg and to a lesser extent some Queenzoners. It is perfectly reasonable for him to wish not to deal with Mr. Brooks, as they have their differences/conflicts, and of course, he doesn’t want his tape to go missing again. Greg may have apologised profusely for the loss, but it still can’t change the fact that John no longer owns that rarity. At the end of the day, all we really want is to see these tracks make it out in great quality, be it through an official release, a share here or any other medium. I really hope that QP will take this opportunity to contact John, and that in the near future, we can anticipate his tracks being on a long-awaited box set. John, thank you for sticking by us all, with everything you’ve had to deal with, you could easily have left this community and kept your rarities and knowledge to yourself. I hope you get the recognition you duly deserve for your kind acts, and that QP treat your tapes with respect and care this time around. |
| GinjaNinja 24.05.2010 13:02 |
Ah, bit of an outdated response that, missed the above comments :P |
| mooghead 24.05.2010 13:07 |
This whole thread is BS. Its getting on for 20 years since Freddie died and the 'anthologies' have been discussed since then. By the time they appear, IF they appear, we will all either be dead or simply not give a shit anymore. |
| The Real Wizard 24.05.2010 17:35 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "i was just saying, take what you can get and don't cry to quality ... i don't care if face it alone was lossless because i have heard hte song now and am happy with that...." Fair enough. But if it's just as easy to do it properly as it is to do it improperly, then why not do it properly? Furthermore, if you're not interested in quality, then you can hear the material in question on youtube, as it's nothing new. What's being discussed here is a quality upgrade from the source tapes. If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, then don't waste webspace for your ranting. In case you can't tell, this is a pretty important topic of discussion for a lot of people. |
| tcc 25.05.2010 07:33 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Putting our rather tedious history of bickering to one side for the moment (if we are ever to make any constructive progress for the benefit of Queen and Queen Fans), there has been SO MANY mentions on this site over the years, from you John, about the various rare Queen audio treasures you have in your collection. So, John, why don't you and I meet up and sit and talk properly about what you have, that we do not have, and what if anything (from that material) is worth doing something with??? Let's get together, cut thru all the bullshit, and try to make some proper constructive progress. I would like to see what exactly it is you have, as i have stated before at least twice in the last 12 years - and discuss whether any of it is relevant to the serious work we are currently involved in within QPL I see you have offered up 'your' De Lane Lea Queen sessions for general grabs. I'm not getting into that. I'll instead stay, with a similar motivation in mind, let's talk and see where we can go with it. The above are the critical points of the QA's first post (cutting out the deviations). What I don't understand is this: 1. Why couldn't GB write the above privately to JSS ? He knows JSS's address and can always get the letter delivered by registered post or courier service. I can't understand the motivation to publicize it. 2. If JSS were to share the De Lane Lea Queen sessions in Queenzone , this thing would not be rare any more - would QPL still want it ? |
| andreas_mercury 25.05.2010 11:28 |
"Furthermore, if you're not interested in quality, then you can hear the material in question on youtube, as it's nothing new." how can even people be so retarted here? i am not talking specific about these items, but unheard things in general... to have " all or nothing " philosophy in place is jsut silly, to me we should get it all out "If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, then don't waste webspace for your ranting. In case you can't tell, this is a pretty important topic of discussion for a lot of people." lol ..... and you have added ..... what exactly to the threads . i am waitng. |
| inu-liger 25.05.2010 13:50 |
Andreas, please stop being such a stubborn jackass. If you can't contribute anything of value to the subject at hand, you may as well stop posting because all you are doing is encouraging negative activity detrimental to the cause at hand. You're only egging people to keep fighting instead of trying to find a solution. |
| ok.computer 25.05.2010 15:23 |
As someone was saying up the page, it's time ALL this stuff was out. I respect the right of people to have collections, etc, but time is moving on. The audience interest is dwindling. At this point now, if I were Queen, I'd be looking at making the whole kit and caboodle available online and for free. The band and their hangers-on have made absolutely enough money to do them, and their next generation. What is the point of constantly hinting and teasing at stuff that could/may/should be in the archives when it patently will not ever see the light of day? If all this material were really, really commercially viable, it would already be out there. It's nearly 20 years since Freddie died. I might have been interested in shelling out big dough for archive material when I was in my late-20s. But I now have a mortgage, and so do many of my peers. Other things come first. Increasingly, I don't see the commercial viability of all this stuff. What would I propose? Well I remember a half-assed attempt by QPL to do a 100 Best Bootlegs thing - a fiver a time or something? Why bother? Get as much together as possible, get it into some sort of high quality, digital format, and get in bloody online for once and for all. The market was there 10 years ago - it ain't there now. It will be "less" there in ten years time. These anthologies or archive materials are becoming less and less relevant. The digital download generation coming up behind me - I'm in my mid-thirties now, and have been coming to this board for years, only to see this Archivist fellow exceed his brief on here - are not in the slightest bit interested in a lovely big container with lots of CDs and DVDs any more. The Archivist - if he has done it properly - has done his job. Move on. Get the site up, get the stuff on it, work with the fans to allow contributions, filter them for quality, and let's leave a proper, accessible, digital and FREE archive - it, at least, has half a chance of strengthening the Queen legacy, and leaving something behind for fans and newcomers alike. |
| andreas_mercury 25.05.2010 23:55 |
" If you can't contribute anything of value to the subject at hand, you may as well stop posting" thats the 3rd hypocrite i see say that to me. what have you offered |
| The Real Wizard 26.05.2010 08:23 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "If you can't contribute anything of value to the subject at hand, you may as well stop posting" >thats the 3rd hypocrite i see say that to me. what have you offered So you're basically saying you're allowed to be detrimental to the discussion, but nobody else is allowed to point it out? Go play on the highway. Spot on, ok.computer. |
| andreas_mercury 26.05.2010 08:59 |
i dont necessary believe i think anyone should be allowed to post any garbage they want (moderators would be good) but dont you see the hypocrisy to your own post? you people can act all as indignant as you want, when it suits YOU, and take offense at all kinds of the aids jokes and other comments i've seen here lately, but as soon as you think its okay you can say "play on the highway" and wish death on people ... as long as it suits you of course. it doesnt matter if you arent contributing to the thread; complaining is good enough. it is sadder to hear from a man like this because i thought GH was in fact a smarter person of the forum but clearly is having a bad week. i dont understand how you can exist with such double standards. doesnt it get confusing doing what the hell you like with no rules? |
| andreas_mercury 26.05.2010 09:01 |
it is like you can't even read. i never said no one else to be detrimental - you can all do it as much as you seem to want (and you have been, quite funny) - but to then cry about it when I do it makes no sense, is this some sort of fan club that i'm not a member of? this is a public forum and if fuckwit inu-liger can write shit that offers no substance then i am allowed to too, until i see the rules that say "no, only this person can write trash, andreas is not allowed to join in". |