| freddies bell end 23.10.2019 20:00 |
link |
| dysan 24.10.2019 06:44 |
That'll cost a sarm and a leg |
| dudeofqueen 24.10.2019 11:08 |
Wonder if Brian knew he was signing something that was being sold for profit; shouldn't a donation be made to save a badger or two from the proceeds.........? Not sure why anyone'd want to buy ANOTHER copy of KYA though...... |
| DeHavilland 25.10.2019 00:49 |
Brian's so handsy about his archival stuff, I'm surprised he didn't lift it right off the guy instead of signing it. "Oh, thank you so much for bringing this back to us. I'll just put this away for safe-keeping." |
| The Real Wizard 25.10.2019 02:01 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Not sure why anyone'd want to buy ANOTHER copy of KYA though......If it's a different mix, it's valuable. But considering they didn't record at SARM until 1974, chances are this is the "long lost retake" version. In that case, the seller must be confusing stories. Unless there's a story of them doing the studio version of KYA in 1973 that hasn't been told. But that's a whole other can of worms, especially now that the 1972 acetate version of KYA has been heard. It's entirely possible that the studio version was recorded in early 73, long after the rest of the album had been finished. So many questions, so few answers. |
| dysan 25.10.2019 06:45 |
Yeah I was going to point out that it's very unclear exactly what version this is. As you say the US cut makes sense and they're getting the year confused. Although it could be the right year and all the other details are wrong. |
| Nathan H 25.10.2019 06:57 |
Also, when I read this the other day I noticed that none of the photos included at the bottom of the page were actually taken in 1974. There are so many mistakes or confirmed details which in my opinion makes this a risky purchase especially for the starting price - $15,000! |
| dysan 25.10.2019 07:56 |
I think they're mainly to illustrate the authenticity of the seller |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.10.2019 08:13 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Sorry, I might be missing something here, but are you referring to the De Lane Lea-demo, or is there another acetate version?dudeofqueen wrote: Not sure why anyone'd want to buy ANOTHER copy of KYA though......But that's a whole other can of worms, especially now that the 1972 acetate version of KYA has been heard. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.10.2019 08:15 |
Double post. Incredible. There seems to be a way to mess up *editing* a post to create a duplicate, although I'm not entirely sure how I did it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.10.2019 08:15 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Sorry, I might be missing something here, but are you referring to the De Lane Lea-demo, or is there another acetate version?dudeofqueen wrote: Not sure why anyone'd want to buy ANOTHER copy of KYA though......But that's a whole other can of worms, especially now that the 1972 acetate version of KYA has been heard. dysan wrote: That'll cost a sarm and a legI have just referred this to the International Court of Justice, Criminally Terrible Puns Division. Your plane ticket to The Hague will be in the mail shortly. |
| dysan 25.10.2019 08:48 |
Thank you. This is the wake up call I needed. Also yes there was a 2nd KYA demo shared on here a couple of years ago. |
| Negative Creep 25.10.2019 13:54 |
The link states that someone took a/the Trident version to Sarm to make a tape copy to send to the US. |
| Sebastian 25.10.2019 14:03 |
Negative Creep wrote: The link states that someone took a/the Trident version to Sarm to make a tape copy to send to the US.Exactly. It's a Sarm tape but it doesn't mean at all that the song was recorded at Sarm. The Sarm staff made a copy of the tape, so the copy had the Sarm logo and stuff rather than the original Trident one. Simple as that. |
| The Real Wizard 25.10.2019 15:08 |
Sebastian wrote:But why would they even do that - especially when the band had an exclusivity deal with Trident ?Negative Creep wrote: The link states that someone took a/the Trident version to Sarm to make a tape copy to send to the US.Exactly. It's a Sarm tape but it doesn't mean at all that the song was recorded at Sarm. The Sarm staff made a copy of the tape, so the copy had the Sarm logo and stuff rather than the original Trident one. Simple as that. |
| The Real Wizard 25.10.2019 15:11 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:The Real Wizard wrote:Sorry, I might be missing something here, but are you referring to the De Lane Lea-demo, or is there another acetate version?dudeofqueen wrote: Not sure why anyone'd want to buy ANOTHER copy of KYA though......But that's a whole other can of worms, especially now that the 1972 acetate version of KYA has been heard. This version is a revelation - kind of a half way between De Lane Lea and the studio version. It's from an acetate of the debut album with the other 9 songs being identical to the album, which suggests they made a last minute decision to re-record the song, possibly as late as 1973. link ^ and here's a thread about it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.10.2019 09:21 |
Thanks Bob! I guess that's what I get for not keeping a close eye on this forum all the time! |
| aristide1 26.10.2019 10:52 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Thanks Bob! I guess that's what I get for not keeping a close eye on this forum all the time!I'm keeping a close eye on you too, but don't restrain yourself from licking and sucking "Bob" because of this. If you feel that your image on this forum will increase because of this forceful association, then go for it. Compared to you Tommy, we are a bunch of public college idiots anyway. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.10.2019 11:17 |
Let's just quote this in full, so he doesn't try to edit it into something less...sociopathic.
aristide1 wrote:There's something deeply, darkly wrong with you, isn't there? "Keeping a close eye on you", LOL. That's not sick at all...thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Thanks Bob! I guess that's what I get for not keeping a close eye on this forum all the time!I'm keeping a close eye on you too, but don't restrain yourself from licking and sucking "Bob" because of this. If you feel that your image on this forum will increase because of this forceful association, then go for it. Compared to you Tommy, we are a bunch of public college idiots anyway. It's pretty impressive that you managed to fit cyber-stalking, an inferiority complex, some less-than-subtle sexual issues and an epic-fail attempt at threats into little more than 50 words, though. So bonus points for keeping it compact and concise. |
| aristide1 26.10.2019 11:38 |
It's fair to have a few LOL from time to time, because I had so many since I've discovered you that I almost feel embarrassed. |
| Sebastian 27.10.2019 19:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But why would they even do that - especially when the band had an exclusivity deal with Trident ?I don't think there was ever such a deal (though of course I could be proved wrong with something like a scanned contract or something like that). The person who copied it at Sarm did it so the song could be remixed elsewhere IIRC, there's nothing wrong with that. When Queen were doing 'Sheer Heart Attack' they were still with Trident but that didn't stop them from recording at Rockfield, AIR and Wessex. It's not just Trident anyway: artists who were signed to Island Records, for instance, were encouraged to prioritise Island Studios (aka Basing Street Studios), but they could still record elsewhere if they wanted to. 'Kimono My House' by Sparks, for instance, was an Island release chiefly done at Island studios, but they also did sessions for it at AIR, Ramport and Wessex; Roxy Music did five albums as Island artists but none of them were recorded at Island Studios - in fact, the first one they partly did there was much later, when they'd signed with E.G. During the Trident years, Queen recorded at Trident often, but not exclusively. Same for mixing. |
| Negative Creep 28.10.2019 13:21 |
Sarm is literally just where someone took the tape to be copied for whatever reason. Contracts don't come into it. All studios have duplication/copy services. |