| John S Stuart 18.10.2004 19:38 |
First: I must appologise to all the readers of "Queenzone". It seems that I have dragged the board into disrepute. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that replying to an honest question with a genuine answer would do so - but I honestly say "sorry" for creating this problem. Greg: After reading the mails of GB - I am convinced you are genuine. We have met before, and I think we know each other. I feel sorry that you need to criticise so vehemently in public - if you re-read the thread in which I offered a contribution - you will see that I gave you a decent press. I do not think I left you with a harsh or negative criticism. What FD said was: "I wrote... enquiring as to why these were omitted... Greg replied: We could NOT find a GOOD quality version of those recordings and even Dave Clark could NOT lay his hands on the MASTERS... Does anyone HAVE a GREAT quality version?" Perhaps I read you incorrectly - but I still think this "implies" that a releasable version does NOT exist. (Why else ask for a great copy?). Yet, when I personally spoke to Dave Clark he stated the "Time" live material was not released due to "financial and copyright reasons". I hope that you agree with me on that much. Your contribution to my answer was minimal. The real important bit could have been rewritten: "According to Dave Clark, the "Time" live material was not released due to "financial and copyright reasons". That neither makes me "muddying waters" - or "stirring up a personal agenda", or even taking an "incorrect guess", for that matter. Frankly; I have moved on from Queen. I do not need to be part of that society any more. I limit my writing to a few articles in a 'zone where I answer questions honestly and to the best of my ability (mainly about my own collection - and as you may be well aware by now - quite a few people in here have excellent copies of the "Time" tracks in question). I daresay I have made a few mistakes, but we both know that it is neither deliberate or intentional. (So I resent being painted as some sort of viper in the midst). We both know that I am not a deliberate liar - or that "I hold a chip on my shoulder" - and frankly, I resent that. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I am still a collector. (We both know that I am really good at ferreting out pieces which "officially" do not exist). Not as serious as I once was, but I still own many "unreleased acetates" and tracks - which will never see the light of day - but apart from that, I have given up the "hunting" because it has simply become far too crooked and dishonest for my liking. But at the end of the day - I have no official connection to Queen or QP - and I can (and do) act as an independant. On the other hand, as an ambassador for Queen Productions limited, I feel that you have overstepped the bounds of decency by criticisng a few fans, who band together of an evening to swap stories, thoughts and experiences, but as you have so pointed out - who am I to criticise? |
| John S Stuart 18.10.2004 20:05 |
From another thread: “But what book did YOU offer. What useful work have YOU offered the Queen fans????” That is a very unfair question Greg - we both know that many "live" books were written long before yours or mine. (Infact - the Dutch Queen fanclub produced a numerous set of "Live Bootleg" books before any of ours was written). The fact that yours was "officially" published made it no better or worse than these others. Now, it would be very difficult to re-write a "new" Queen book - as they have all been written before, or, we are denied the same access to the Queen archives which you enjoy. For example, I doubt Brian would give me the time of day about "1984", but I am sure that he would be more than willing to give you unrestricted access. As I said, that is not a criticism, but on the otherhand, I don't think that a fan's legitimate criticism at a lack of accuracy in certain places in your live work need be met with hostilty. A simple - "sorry the previous edition had to be written under deadline pressures - but I am working towards including corrections in the next..." might be more diplomatic than calling someone an arsehole. Again, this is not me being sarcastic - or "holier than thou", but for many you are the "face" of Queen Productions - and as such, I think many feel that Queen Productions could be a bit more dignified. But hey, that's just my opinion. |
| Adam Baboolal 18.10.2004 23:06 |
This is possibly all I'll add to this. John, surely you understand how others on this board look to you? When John S Stuart posts something, people sit up and listen. And from this comes the zoner's P.O.V.. A lot of zoners will take what you say, word for word. And it's this point that can cause problems. I think this is the idea that's being discussed by Greg to you in those previous replies. One of them, anyway! :) Now, before I type out this next sentence, please don't fly off the handle... I realised this when 'that topic' came up a while back. Which is why I tried to come in and set things straight on that issue. It was and never has been intended to upset or ridicule you. I simply felt it important to get things set absolutely straight for those without the knowledge. Otherwise, your "mistake" would've been taken as fact by those without the knowledge. Now let's leave that there. Please don't explain 'that topic.' It's the simple idea of not letting someone go away thinking that (for instance) Brian came up with the Under Pressure bassline. You or someone else with the knowledge would chime in and set them straight on that fact. Yes? That's what I always try to achieve when passing on my knowledge. To present it without any doubts in my mind, that what I'm posting is correct. In answering a question, I never post an answer I don't know is 100% correct. Especially if it shapes the opinion of another. Peace, Adam. P.S. Don't hurt me! Want my lunch money?! :) |
| Lester Burnham 18.10.2004 23:17 |
John, you're only human. Greg doesn't seem to understand that, and I find it unfair that he's singling you out (though he's now taken to attacking Zeni). I find it ridiculous that you have to constantly explain yourself, especially since I respect you far more than I do Greg Brooks. Don't let this sour your outlook on Queenzone. I'd be fascinated to read anything you write, and I'd take it with more merit because you constantly tell us what you know, as opposed to Greg, who is paid to research Queen and still leads us fans in the dark. I'd like more information on the box set, Greg, as opposed to your bitching about what one Queen fan thinks of you. |
| Adam Baboolal 18.10.2004 23:53 |
Lester, how can you expect Greg to expose details on the box set if he's part of the Queen machine? John gives us insider-type details because a) he wants to and b) he's not contractually silenced on certain things like Greg. Greg may be spouting many things, but don't join him. Peace, Adam. |
| John S Stuart 19.10.2004 03:22 |
Adam: You really are some piece of work. I have a serious question I would like you to answer - why do you have real serious issues regarding my self?Why the personal hate campaign? What have I ever done to you that was so terrible? I made a mistake in another thread and replied with an apology. I also wrote in a previous thread "...you can not use a... term like "blag" without it being used in a negative context... someone who makes a genuine mistake is... totally different... from a "blaggard". That is unless you ACTUALLY mean I am a cheat, a liar, a conman, and a swindler... you may not realise the full impact of what you have been saying. I also accept that... English is not your native language". You replied: "...Just because my name isn't John Doe, doesn't mean English isn't my native language. I'm Scottish...". I said nothing at the time - but - this means (along with the additional comments on this thread) that you DO (and STILL) believe that I am a blag. For g*ods sake even Kate Adie has made mistakes. I have commited no crime here - and it isn't in the same league as Tony Blair's Weapons Of Mass Destruction - or Greg Dyke's defence of the BBC. (Or for that part the "Face" of Queen Productions "implying" that certain tapes did NOT exist). If "when I speak - Queenzone listens" - it is with good reason - because my information is 99% accurate. Now, that seems a good batting average from where I am sitting. I have never written anything other than that which I am sure of - and if it was a mistake - it was a genuine error - NOT a blag. You also wrote: "Thank god it's over. I never meant to cause such a ruckus with you JSS... for the record John, I've never been against you in any way." Yet you NEVER apologised, or retracted your statement in any way, and worse still, still spew forth the same stupid idea - namely that I am out to cheat the board ("...I always try to... when passing on my knowledge. To present it without any doubts in my mind, that what I'm posting is correct). WOW - that is a novel idea Adam! I'm really glad YOU thought of that, because I only post what I know to be inaccurate - get a life! Kind of negates that "I've never been against you in any way... or the "peace" you proclaim. |
| Hank H. 19.10.2004 06:21 |
I always admire the endurance with which people like Zeni or John reply and argue, even if what they say is absolutely self-evident, until even the most stubborn people MUST see they are in the wrong. And once again they argued politely, persuasively, intelligently and very extensively. So GB, don't deviate from the main subject, stop talking nonsense about anonymous posting, think before you post chauvinistic comments, think before you try to justify them (you made them even worse) and stop forcing people to state the obvious. You come across like a tot. Do your job instead. |
| Mr Mercury 19.10.2004 07:09 |
John S Stuart wrote: From another thread: “But what book did YOU offer. What useful work have YOU offered the Queen fans????” That is a very unfair question Greg - we both know that many "live" books were written long before yours or mine. (Infact - the Dutch Queen fanclub produced a numerous set of "Live Bootleg" books before any of ours was written). The fact that yours was "officially" published made it no better or worse than these others. Now, it would be very difficult to re-write a "new" Queen book - as they have all been written before, or, we are denied the same access to the Queen archives which you enjoy. For example, I doubt Brian would give me the time of day about "1984", but I am sure that he would be more than willing to give you unrestricted access. As I said, that is not a criticism, but on the otherhand, I don't think that a fan's legitimate criticism at a lack of accuracy in certain places in your live work need be met with hostilty. A simple - "sorry the previous edition had to be written under deadline pressures - but I am working towards including corrections in the next..." might be more diplomatic than calling someone an arsehole. Again, this is not me being sarcastic - or "holier than thou", but for many you are the "face" of Queen Productions - and as such, I think many feel that Queen Productions could be a bit more dignified. But hey, that's just my opinion.From the bottom of my heart I thank you for that John, as it was me who started the bit about his book and I have since explained why I came to that conclusion. I even apologised for what may have been an over the top quote about the amount of innacuracies but I also acknowledged the fact that he has a mammoth task to undertake and like I said then also, I wish him well and have nothing but admiration for him in doing so. Dave |
| Adam Baboolal 19.10.2004 09:29 |
I find it amazing that you took my simple good willed post and turned it round. This is the last time I'm saying this - I'm not against you in any way. I think this is a time where you can't listen to reason. If you want to act like this paranoid person, fair enough, but don't try and say that I'm out to get you or that I'm on a hate campaign. You know why I don't need to apologise? Because I haven't done anything wrong. How can you compare Tony Blair's mass destruction bombs lie with the things going on in threads like these? I told you in a previous thread, if I'm wrong I'll say that I am/was. But you said it yourself, you're overly-sensitive right now. Peace, Adam. |
| GB 19.10.2004 10:11 |
John S Stuart wrote: That is a very unfair question Greg - we both know that many "live" books were written long before yours or mine. |
| GB 19.10.2004 10:17 |
JOHN WROTE... 'Frankly; I have moved on from Queen. I do not need to be part of that society any more' JOHN. YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALL OVER THS SITE - IN EVERY CORNER OF IT. GOD KNOWS HOW MANY THINGS YOU'VE ADDED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS. YOU'VE MOVED ON FROM QUEEN ABOUT AS FAR AS A LEGLESS TORTOISE HAS MOVED ON. YOU ARE MORE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY THAN ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, MAN. YOU'RE TALKING NONSENSE. "MOVED ON FROM QUEEN"!!!!! YOU CLEARLY, VERY CLEARLY HAVEN'T. GB |
| Pim Derks 19.10.2004 10:45 |
Please, press your Caps Lock key for once Greg. |
| John S Stuart 19.10.2004 10:47 |
"I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WROTE A QUEEN LIVE BOOK. IT IS ANY GOOD? DID YOU USE MY BOOK AS A REFERENCE, OR DO 100 PERCENT ALL YOUR OWN RESEAERCH. I AM GENUINELY INTERESTED". I didn't need to use yours - I returned to the same SOURCES you did. Remember, it was no academic feat - considering that every queen live concert has been reported in the fan club since 1975. (Another great source is the local newspapers of the time). However, the big difference between us is that although I have used "bootlegged tapes" (and their corrections) - you have UNLIMITED access to official sources (and soundboard recordings) so yours SHOULD be streets better than anyone else - it is literally a David v. Goliath scenario - and there is NO way anyone is going to have the resources to match you. If you "REALLY" want to read about Queen live - I suggest you visit link which is better than I ever did - and is frequently updated/corrected. (So as far as I am aware - is the MOST correct information at present). I think that it even gives you a run for your money! I would love to read an academic tome re:Queen's live performances (and I do use your book as a quick reference) but that does not mean it can't be bettered. Obviously we all strive for perfection (don't we?), And although I conceed your work was good - it is no slur to say it could be better, or that the reprints could be improved - is it? |
| Wombat 07.06.2005 09:53 |
john is the best |
| Lester Burnham 07.06.2005 10:08 |
What the fuck did you bump this for? Maybe if you'd, oh I don't know, offered something worthwhile, but bumping a thread that is eight months old just to say "John is the best"? Fucking pointless. |
| Wombat 07.06.2005 10:29 |
you ain't agree he is the best? |
| dimcyril 07.06.2005 10:35 |
who does this greg brooks man think he is? |
| Bobby_brown 07.06.2005 16:03 |
Istead of fighting, we should use our strenghts to bring the best out of the Queen vaults. One thing that really pisses me off at Queen Productions is that there are lots of Queen sites, and when something is to be released they just don´t care about this people opinions. Why they (Queen Productions) just can´t open their minds to new ideas? Really, i have lots of good ideas for Queen products, and i mean many of you have, but i know if i present them to Queen productions they will turn them down. When i heard about the Boxes SIX years ago i remember Greg writing something for Queen fans to reunite valuable information that could be included in those boxes. A couple of months John S Stuart said that those Boxes are not going to be released. Why?- I mean, did they lost money with the Freddie Box? I understand both sides and i really like them both. I think Greg is doing a wonderfull job with the Queen catalogue, and the best thing that i thing Gregs has, is the fact that he´s loyal to the band. John S stuart his a wonderfull guy that provides the fans with new ( top secret) information that keeps us going! So, instead of fighting back at each other i think you should join forces and do what you can to bring the best to Queen fans. Do you want ideas, here they are: For what i heard, there are Tracks that Freddie sang live that weren´t at the Box. So, here are some options: 1)re-release the greatest hits with this songs in it; 2)Release an EP 3)Put them at the Queenzone for download like they did with their recordings of this tour. 4)Don´t do nothing while the fans keep on bootleg them. Here goes another idea: Some years ago i read that the Gratefull Dead fan club were selling every show they have taped- EVERY SHOW. They did a list and then the fans will choose wich shows do they want to buy. I really thought this was a good idea and i really was thinkin´of present it to Queen productins. Later last year Queen Put on their website Bootlegs to be downloaded. When i first heard the news i thought that Queen were doing the same as Gratefull Dead, but to my disbelief they were selling bootlegs recordings when they have the vaults full of oficial recordings. How do you fight back bootlegers? My opinion:- With oficial releases. Queen opinion:-With more bootlegs. And what really made me feel a little stupid was when Brian tried to make it credible. Why can´t Queen make avaiable all their shows of previous tours to be downloaded by the Fans? I tell you why: Queen are adicted to number one so they only do things that in the end will reach at number one. So, guiving the fans everything to download would make them loose their strenght at the Charts. And they don´t want that. Really, you may say i´m crazy, but we´re talking about a band that has sold more than 150 million albums so they just can´t say that there isn´t enough market to the Box sets, DVD´s, etc. Heavy metal bands like Manowar, Iron maiden, etc just kicks Queen asses everytime they release something. What i think is this: Everything we want now to be released will be released some day, throughout the years to keep the flame burning. Even the Earls Court concert will be released as a bonus DVD for a CD or Wathever. And we could go on all night doing this but really, Who cares? Not Queen anyway!! By the way, is GB GReg Brooks from the Queen productions?- If it is i want to say that i have made a research about Queen in the Portuguese charts between 1976-1986. Since there were´nt oficial charts back them it eas a little hard to get it. I can provide you this information, because i really never seen it on the internet. I did for the boxes, but you can use it for your own sites. Guive me a mail and i´ll send them to you. Take care |
| deleted user 07.06.2005 19:43 |
Bobby, this an OLD THREAD from John posted last October and for which I think his issues were resolved. Womble just bumped it for some stupid fucking reason..... Time to let this thread die again. |
| Mercuryworks 07.06.2005 22:15 |
John S Stuart wrote: I am still a collector. (We both know that I am really good at ferreting out pieces which "officially" do not exist). Not as serious as I once was, but I still own many "unreleased acetates" and tracks - which will never see the light of day - but apart from that, I have given up the "hunting" because it has simply become far too crooked and dishonest for my liking.I know it is old but still this up here is a shame |
| Bobby_brown 08.06.2005 14:43 |
SixPence wrote: Bobby, this an OLD THREAD from John posted last October and for which I think his issues were resolved. Womble just bumped it for some stupid fucking reason..... Time to let this thread die again.Thanks! I´ve noticed a couple of days ago that people were starting to answer again to very old posts. Lets leave it where it is, because some posts just seems out of context. Take care |
| The Real Wizard 14.11.2005 17:03 |
I had to bring this topic back. In the past, Greg Brooks played so many games regarding the Time musical live songs, and here he is again, in a mass email today to collectors regarding his new book, still trying to cover up his wrongdoings of the past: "I am finding many great things now, in addition to Brian’s amazing collection, but I would hate for this book to emerge and some fan come up to me in Holland or Prestatyn in 2007, saying “ I have this fantastic Queen News Of The World promo bla bla, but it isn’t in your book Mr Brooks. It is spectacular!” I will want to slaughter that person in an agonising fashion. This happened to me after we handed in the 12-disc Freddie Solo collection to EMI... People telling me TOO LATE that they had Freddie singing live at the Time musical. “TOO DAMNED LATE!” I said." Absolute bullshit. That is totally NOT what happened. He started the rumour that the songs didn't exist, because it would be easier than dealing with all the copyright issues, since the tracks were owned by several big-named people, if I'm not mistaken. Classic Greg. What do you think, JSS? Others? |
| Lester Burnham 14.11.2005 17:51 |
I saw that and laughed and laughed and laughed and........ |
| Fenderek 15.11.2005 05:44 |
Yeah well... We (fans) could find it, the official archivist couldn't... Well... Maybe he should start using internet a little bit more? Or start trading under different name? |
| Benn 15.11.2005 09:42 |
Good old Greg. Getting other people to do all the diggnig / research, only for him to take the credit in the final work. |
| Fenderek 15.11.2005 12:03 |
Yes- pewfect indeed. ;) Centuwyon- stwike him, vewy waffly ;) |
| john bodega 16.11.2005 03:36 |
GB wrote: I AM GREG BROOKS, ALL BEFORE ME TREMBLE. I AM SORRY THAT I HAVE CAUSED DISTRESS TO YOU FINE PEOPLE, AND I FULLY INTEND TO MAKE AMENDS. ALSO I AM UPLOADING FACE IT ALONE SO THAT ZEBONKA CAN HAVE IT. IT IS THE LEAST THAT I COULD DO FOR BEING SUCH A RIGHT PRAT. GBWow... unexpected but very generous! Give him a hand fellas! |