| djaef 04.04.2005 00:47 |
Since I started this particular discussion, I thought I'd better clarify my position. I am extremely grateful for this site, and the generosity of its members. I participated in a trading tree last year, which got me enough material to get into the hub, and I have been madly collecting and sharing ever since. I have also downloaded quite a few items from here, in the form of torrents. I haven't shared a lot on here as yet, as I haven't figured out how to make a torrent and I doubt I have much that is considered rare, but I leave my client open after downloading and always leave the hub on all night every night. To be considered a leech would be devestating to me, as to me "sharing" is what it is all about. (Not that I think anyone is calling me a leech. :) ) One thing I am not though, is a collector or trader (in the traditional sense), and as such I've been trying to understand the mentality behind not sharing. I understand it a lot better now, particularly in reference to "physical product". If I were John S Stuart, I wouldn't be sharing Hangman either. Some things are rare and valuable because they are rare. But what about a recorded concert? I don't quite understand the reason to keep a concert within a group of priveledged traders. If you are not trying to gain financially from Queen's work (ie. bootlegging), what is the point of holding stuff out of the public domain? This is a serious question. I want to understand how people think. If I had a recording for example of the full Paris show, I can guarantee you that it would be shared on the hub right now. That's how I think. I wouldn't be trying to sell it, or keep it amongst my friends. I would be sharing it. That is not neccessarily the only attitude in the world, so please, enlighten me of other attitudes. That is just what I'd do. I also agree that collecting (whether it be real or digital product) should be a labour of love. If it comes too easy, then there is no value. I have spent countless hours on the hub finding stuff I was interested in, and countless more hours waiting for it to download :). As I said, I have never been a mad collector (although let me be clear: I do own every official Queen album, and virtually every Queen related release in one or several formats), but I really enjoy the fruits of digital collecting. All it takes is time and patience, and you can hear nearly anything (except it seems Hangman :)) So, that's whereI stand. I'm keen to hear other viewpoints as long as it's kept civil. |
| Maz 04.04.2005 01:04 |
djaef wrote: If I had a recording for example of the full Paris show, I can guarantee you that it would be shared on the hub right now. That's how I think. I wouldn't be trying to sell it, or keep it amongst my friends. I would be sharing it. That is not neccessarily the only attitude in the world, so please, enlighten me of other attitudes. That is just what I'd do.If you had the Paris show, but you really wanted the Madrid show, what's the best way for you to get it? It would be great if the Madrid taper shared it for free with everyone, but will he do that? If you share the Paris show with everyone, then its "value" is zero. If you keep it for trading, then you have a shot to trade for your beloved Madrid show. That's the reasoning for some. Like it or not, Queen bootlegs are currency in certain circles. I said this in another thread, but it's really the culture of Queen fans. Other bands are much more open to sharing, yet Queen fans are more restrained (and worse tapers). As for those "fans" who sell bootlegs in order to make some income, they don't deserve the testicles God gave them. |
| djaef 04.04.2005 02:31 |
Zeni wrote: If you had the Paris show, but you really wanted the Madrid show, what's the best way for you to get it? It would be great if the Madrid taper shared it for free with everyone, but will he do that? If you share the Paris show with everyone, then its "value" is zero. If you keep it for trading, then you have a shot to trade for your beloved Madrid show. That's the reasoning for some. Like it or not, Queen bootlegs are currency in certain circles. I said this in another thread, but it's really the culture of Queen fans. Other bands are much more open to sharing, yet Queen fans are more restrained (and worse tapers).Thanks Zeni for the insight. You're right. I don't like it much. I figure if everybody shared the music, there would be no need for such an attitude in the first place as the Madrid concert would also be there freely available to anyone who wanted it... |
| djaef 04.04.2005 05:26 |
the_hero wrote: Then again.... what if they share a lower sourced version of a demo of bootleg for people to listen to and give an idea of what it sounds like? that sounds pretty reasonableyeah I suppose so. In the end, it's up to the individual to do whatever he/she sees fit to do with their own stuff, and I am beginning to see it's not at all straightforward. There are many varied perspectives (which is why I started the thread in the first place). But yeah, if someone had Houston 77 in dvd quality and they released it as a crap quality vcd, they wouldn't be losing much, would they? They would still have the rare, expensive item - the GOOD QUALITY Houston 77 dvd. Correct me if I'm wrong. This doesn't seem like a case where the release of something would lower the value of the original (much in any case). Then again, maybe I'm totally wrong. |
| thankstogravity 04.04.2005 18:03 |
djaef, I appreciate that you're taking the time to try to understand all this. I hope others will learn something from these threads, too. As a trader for the past ten years, I can't even remember how many times I've set up a trade for a "low generation" upgrade of a show only to find after I received it that it's the same crappy, hissy high-gen mess I already had. (This never happened with a Queen show - with Queen, no matter what it was labelled as, it seemed to be a butchered version of one of the official videos or Live Killers time and time again.) The point I'm trying to make is that collectors/traders strive to keep the best version available of any given recording in circulation. With the possibility of lossy (ie mp3) generations, it has become even more important than ever to document the lineage of recordings. The most serious of the bunch even document the equipment used to record and transfer the show, and the exact location where the show was recorded at the venue. With all this in mind, it would be considered a grave faux pas among dedicated archivists to intentionally issue a lesser quality version of a show (Houston '77, to use your example). To do so would muddy the trading waters, and increase the chance that someone in the future would unknowingly receive the lesser quality version. For more info on this type of subject, you should visit etree.org |
| djaef 04.04.2005 19:15 |
OK, thanks. It seems a rather complicated scene, with many unwritten rules (or maybe that's just what it looks like to an outsider). But, I have a better understanding of many issues than I did a few days ago, so it hasn't been a waste of time. :) |
| John S Stuart 04.04.2005 19:46 |
Djaef: I completely agree with you, so let me share a few of my thoughts. Very limited rare material: Your example of the blue "Bo Rhap" being valuable in itself - even though the track is quite common-place - is the exception rather than the rule. I have both original BBC Transcription disc LP's. One is the Golders Green Concert and the other is the 1975 Hammersmith Odeon Xmas show. These cost me about £250 each at the time - but they were unavailable elsewhere. These discs (although the have kept their value) were MORE valuable pre-internet, than post-internet, and the reason for this is obvious. If anyone here wants to buy these disc - I will sell them - but because they are both very common concerts now, and can be downloaded for free - I guarantee no one will take me up on that offer. I know of other Queen fans who have also bought acetates - some with different versions of the released version - others not so. It was a gamble which they were willing to take. Therefore, why do I deserve a copy of their material if I was not willing to take that gamble for myself? As has been alluded to in the past, if another collector bought prized wines, I could not expect them to pay £500 for a bottle, then beg for a free glass. It's just not polite. Sharing the music: I too would like to point out that I have NEVER, EVER charged for any Queen trade. I conceed that I have bought, swapped, uploaded, downloaded, and even sold artifacts like LPs, CDs, or acetates, but I have NEVER accepted monies for any home-made media (either live or studio). For me - that is NOT what the game is about. If a "circle of elite traders" did exist, I can assure you that it would be built upon faith, trust and mutial passing of material. At no point would finance EVER raise its ugly, vulgar head. Genorosity: Hand on heart, many guys in here do NOT know the extent of my generosity. All I will say is that I have been VERY generous over the years, and to find "MY" stuff, which I have freely distributed into the larger Queen community end up for extortionate prices on e-bay, does make me feel disappointed annoyed. Finally: It is a given that NO official material should ever be uploaded/downloaded - or that monies should be exchanged, but then again, I am an old fart from the old school, so I always thought that being nice, polite and diplomatic was the way forwards. Now I find the arrogance of "I want it all, and I want it now", the epidemic begging and leeching, the aversion to using even a rudimentary search engine, and the flaunting of official and even charitable material, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I agree with sharing. I agree with the passing of otherwise unavailable material, but let's get it back into perspective. Be happy with what you have, Search for what you don't, and don't expect that the world owes you a favour. The cost of 35 years experience is 35 years. There are no shortcuts. Sorry for preaching, but this is a great site - and I would like it to stay so. |
| inu-liger 04.04.2005 20:10 |
John S Stuart wrote: These discs (although the have kept their value) were MORE valuable pre-internet, than post-internet, and the reason for this is obvious. If anyone here wants to buy these disc - I will sell them - but because they are both very common concerts now, and can be downloaded for free - I guarantee no one will take me up on that offer.Actually, you're not completely right on the offer part. Since I am just getting back into collecting vinyl records, I'd be interested in hearing how much you would offer to sell each of these transcription discs for. (Would you be able to tell me as well if these are in stereo or mono?) Depending on your offer, I might buy at least 1 record from you. (ED: Just so you know though, I won't be able to make any purchases until August at the very earliest, as starting in May until the end of July, I will be saving my money towards an anime convention I will be attending from August 5-7 here in Edmonton. Just so you're aware) If you wish to e-mail me, you're free to do so. |
| djaef 04.04.2005 20:24 |
Thanks for the post John. I really appreciate you passing on your experience and perspective.
John S Stuart wrote: I agree with sharing. I agree with the passing of otherwise unavailable material, but let's get it back into perspective. Be happy with what you have, Search for what you don't, and don't expect that the world owes you a favour. The cost of 35 years experience is 35 years. There are no shortcuts.Intelligent words indeed. |