| Queen Archivist 25.10.2006 19:17 |
In my thread in which I talk about the Freddie Mercury boxed set of 2000 being a great piece of work - from all of those involved in putting it together, including me, John S. Stuart, in very typical and predictable fashion, has today presented a HUGE list of what he calls the "missing tracks". This is another example of him trying to be oh so clever and know-all, but in fact coming accross as a twat who doesn't think about practicality or the boredom factor before making silly invalid points. He just spouts off before thinking first. That's why we cannot work with you John. Let's overlook the fact that certain tracks were deliberately left off the SOLO collection in order that the set was not THE most boring and anoraky product ever issued in the history of music, because by ANY standards 16 versions of Living On My Own would be tedious and gratuitously excessive... let's examine JSS's point. I will not go into the HUGE detail John did, because that would be bone-shakingly boring for all (except him), but let's instead hone in on just some of what this peculiar person evidently wanted the box to include. Before John denies he wanted ALL the things he listed, I remind him that he said (in HIS words) "missing tracks". He therefore wanted these things to feature, otherwise he would not have described them as missing. When you have read the proposterous and excessively boring list below, ask yourself... "Did I really want another 6 versions of that song, 6 more of this one, 8 more versions of such and such - just because each edit is a few seconds longer or shorter than the single edit or album version or the film version?" Jesus! How outrageously dull would THAT be???? Imagine if the Beatles followed JSS's prefered road... 8 versions of Let It Be, 12 versions of Help, etc, etc. We featured 3 and 4 versions of certain songs on that box, but John wanted 6, 7, or 8 more, in some cases. It would have had to be 16 or 18 CDs and would have cost TWICE AS MUCH. That's £200, John. You need to think before opening your trap, This is the man who fancies himself as the compiler of Queen and/or Freddie CD boxes. Can you imagine how dull such a project would be? God almighty! Who in their right mind wants... 3 versions of Billy Squier: Love Is The Hero / TEN (yes 10) more versions of Love Kills / ANOTHER EIGHT (yes 8) versions of Living On My Own / and ANOTHER FIVE VERSIONS OF Great Pretender???? HIGHLIGHTS OF JOHN'S BOXED SET INCLUDE... AND I QUOTE HIM VERBATUM.... Please note John's serious suggestion herein that we "Missed out" home recordings of obscure things, recorded on minidisk - YES I'm serious. You'll see for yourself. JSS WOULD HAVE FEATURED... 3 versions of Billy Squier: Love Is The Hero LP Version - Capitol CDP 7 46317 2 UK 7" 4:03 Version - Capitol 5619 US CD Anthology 12" Remix - Chronicles 314 529 296-2 JSS WOULD HAVE FEATURED... TEN (yes 10) more versions of Love Kills 1984 Metropolis 2:25 OST - Metropolis Video 1992 Canada 12"/ CD 5:17 Re-Edit - In Memories Of Freddie Mercury 1992 US Wolf Original 3:27 Remix - Parlophone CDR 6331 1992 US Wolf Euro 3:24 Remix - Parlophone PM 517 2000 Synthesised Version 3:41 - Unreleased: Home Mini Disc 2000 Jazz Version 4:40 - Unreleased: Home Mini Disc 2000 Overture Version 3:33 - Unreleased: Home Mini Disc 2000 Synthesised Version (Radio Edit) - Unreleased: 2000 Jazz Version (Edit) - Unreleased: 1986 Metropolis Video Excerpt - Metropolis Video JSS WOULD HAVE FEATURED... ANOTHER THREE VERSIONS of I Was Born To Love You 1985 Casio 1:51 Bootleg Demo - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc 1985 US DJ Steven Von Blau 7:30 Mix - Disconet MWDN 711 Volume 11 Programme 7 2002 Freddie Mercury DJ White Label Club Mix - Wanted: Instrumental - Unreleased JSS WOULD HAVE FEATURED... THREE MORE VERSIONS of Mr. Bad Guy 1985 Argentina 7” 3:17 Edit - I Was Born To Love You 1993 Br |
| Smitty 25.10.2006 22:27 |
You know I totally see your point. Why have all of those tedious versions of random and repetitive songs on any sort of box set. That's just stupid. You know there's another project going on that I think I need to hear your opinion about. Below is a Queen project going on that has some unnecessary inclusions. I have made a short list: ------------------------------------------ Queenzone: The Unnecessary Additions Greg Brooks- Queen Archivist, Released mid 2006, seemingly neverending, pops up regularly, spam follows ------------------------------------------ Let me know if you think this unnecessary inclusion should be CUT from this hopefully everlasting project known as the Queen Internet Zone. -P.S.- You know man, WHY do you constantly have to post this shit on the boards? Couldn't you have just left this to the initial topic? Do you crave THAT MUCH attention? Jeez man, get a life. Just go do what you do best: 1. Release crappy, error ridden books about Queen's Concerts 2. Record the phrase "Property of Queen Productions" over everything |
| Azzleeno 26.10.2006 01:01 |
First off - Greg's totally right that releasing all of those other ump-teen versions of songs would have been awful and boring....HOWEVER, the way he said that fact with "twat", etc. and all of the other name calling anti-vibe in his message made his solid message totally irrellevent. I am distanced from this crap enough to separate Greg's correctness on the topic from his child-like approach to JSS but most will be pissed. Bummer Greg - you take a perfectly good factual post and turn it into a boring/annoying children's game. I wouldn't be surprised if QUEEN Productions fires you for this kind of crap someday soon. As much as I have appreciated you contributions, writings, etc. to our beloved band you are just behaving like a fool. |
| goodco 26.10.2006 01:13 |
Hopefully, this old pasted link works link This is from 2001. JSS wasn't the only one calling out some obvious omissions and errors. btw....all the versions of 'Love Is The Hero' SHOULD have been on the box set. Why not the more polished 'Lady With A Tenor Sax' release added as well? Where was the live performance of 'It's In Everyone Of Us'? The ultimate goof up to not include this treasure. But we got how many versions of the non Freddie performed LOMO? And the great pretending 'The Great Pretender' instead of 'The Freddie Mercury insult....er, Album. Thank goodness QP didn't have their hand in any Zeppelin, Beatle, or Sinatra archives. |
| Togg 26.10.2006 03:47 |
I found it interesting to see how many items were effectively out there, however, I would agree with Greg that there is no way a collection such as this could ever get marketed. I seriously doubt that John meant all of the versions of every song should be there, but there are one or two notable exceptions that I would also hope Greg feels could/should have been included. Like I said before I think the set currently out there is a great tribute to Freddie and a worthy piece of work, it would have been nice if it had every track he ever recorded but not every version unless substantially different. |
| Madman007 26.10.2006 04:30 |
I completly agree with you Greg... who really wants 3497652948762984 versions of the same song? BUT... are the Phantom songs ever going to be available? I'd love to hear Freddie sing those. |
| Jan78 26.10.2006 06:19 |
Double-checking what above google link says, I am very surprised, I never noticed, that Exercises in Free Love is actually on the box set twice with Freddie's vocal on there. Montserrat's version is missing and I wonder why? A mistake or misprint? As GB is probably re-visiting this thread in the future, I also would like to ask why Keep Yourself Alive, Liar, Killer Queen and Now I'm Here on Greatest Video Hits I are being treated as brand new and rarely ever seen, while they were widely available on the Box of Flix in 1991. GB said, the Freddie Box would have been much bigger and as that more expensive if all possible tracks would have been included. I presume, that problem could have been avoided, if the Instrumentals or A Capella mixes would have been left out. There would have been an entire CD worth of space without the instrumentals, a capella or vocals&piano mixes, as they are pretty much the original versions with simply the respective parts removed. Jan |
| Adam Baboolal 26.10.2006 06:38 |
Well Jan, people love those instrumentals and the piano and vocal pieces. It seems to be popular amongst fans. So, to remove that particular part of the set would be a mistake. Greg's got a point on this track thing. You can't just chuck stuff into the box and hope it'll stick. I think the Freddie box set is a really nice piece of work. Nice to open up and browse through with some interesting bits and bobs. Adam. |
| Jan78 26.10.2006 06:53 |
Hi Adam, yes, and I am definitely not complaining about the Freddie box. I love it. And how far does perfection go anyway? I personally care for tracks that Freddie was definitely involved in and had control over. So every remix after 1991 is something I so don't need to hear or have. But other people and completists have a different opinion. That's ok. And I also accept the occasional mistake as something I notice and smile about. Anyone remembers Rick Sky's Freddie biography? I think everybody gets something for themselves out of such a box or any release. To me it is an abundance of tracks and lots of great photos in a nice package. So really, I'm not complaining. We are just used to a lot of perfection from the Queen camp up until 1995, I guess. Like they would withdraw copies of Queen II just because of a printing error on the cover. These times seem to have gone. But that's ok. Speaking about the box set, another question. Is the front cover picture an actual photograph of Freddie or just a very good print like a glossy postcard? Jan |
| freddie lives 28817 26.10.2006 07:24 |
Well, there are certainly TWO tracks that I think should have been in the set, one of which is a MAJOR oversight, and that is the 1985 Brazil 12" 6:34 Remix which is a valid DIFFERENT remix released at the time - NOT a remix done years later. It's different, not an edit - so yes, that should have been included. That track would have been a better track to add to the recent Singer Of Songs CD release than all those shitty dance remixes of Love Kills - at least it's "proper" Freddie. Also, there's the demo version of "Lady With A Tenor Sax" that EMI had up on their (private) ftp site before the set came out that is instrumental at the end where the last verse is, rather than the appalling obvious "stick on" from the released Billy Squier album that ended up on the set. Apart from that, I can understand you not putting on the other things John mentioned (apart from the other unreleased demos if they exist) By The Way - what's the story with the other unreleased demos that surfaced on the net a few years ago like "you are the only one"???? |
| cmsdrums 26.10.2006 08:27 |
I loved the Freddie box, and agree that pointless numerous versions of the same song would be useless. I think what people do get annoyed at is when they find out that there are actual whole (or part) songs missing that we don't know much about (eg the Michael Jackson + Freddie tracks) - unfortunately, as Greg points out, although we want to hear all these rarities, we can't all know the legisitics of whether a song can be included i.e. do Mercury Songs own the copyright etc... What does annoy me however is that the big quote on the back cover of the new Freddie 'In His Own Words' book says something like, "do anything with my work but never make me boring" - they then release a whole CD of samey dance remixes, which bores most listeners to tears! |
| unknown 26.10.2006 09:19 |
Sorry, I have a question: Isn't it possible to release the Freddie Mercury Boxed set and/or the Queen Boxed set in 'sections', so you don't have to buy one big box at once, but instead to 'pick' what you want? |
| Adam Baboolal 26.10.2006 09:30 |
freddie lives wrote: Also, there's the demo version of "Lady With A Tenor Sax" that EMI had up on their (private) ftp site before the set came out that is instrumental at the end where the last verse is, rather than the appalling obvious "stick on" from the released Billy Squier album that ended up on the set.Well, I don't see how it's appalling. And it's stuck on to demonstrate how Freddie influenced Billy on the final version of the track. Seems pretty logical to me. What use would a bit of instrumental at the end do? Nothing, which is why Billy's version shows up on the same track to demonstrate Freddie's input. If you don't appreciate that, there's nothing there to criticise. Adam. |
| Sebastian 26.10.2006 10:09 |
Can't anybody ban this tart? |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 12:05 |
Greg: Thanks for the feedback, it is always a pleasure to discuss all things Queen (and related) in a gentlemanly and logical fashion.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of my response, so please let one of my fellow Queenzoner's spell it out for you...
Togg wrote: I seriously doubt that John meant all of the versions of every song should be there, but there are one or two notable exceptions that I would also hope Greg feels could/should have been included.So while I agree it would have been impractical (but not impossible) to include ALL the above tracks, I STILL think all of the Ibex material COULD have been included at no extra expense, just as I believe that the live Dave Clark material COULD have been included also, but, as you know that is only my opinion. A complete lists allows others to make their OWN choices based on informed opinion - and not be seduced by the product alone. I realise that you will now have to reply with some catty or sarcastic comment, or like the coward you are, wind up others to do your dirty work for you. However, my belief in freedom of speech means that I must continue to suffer your insult and tantrums, but unfortunately for you, it also means that I am allowed to point out, that in my opinion the box set could have been bettered. Now, any chance of a half decent response? |
| .Jony. 26.10.2006 13:25 |
Azzleeno wrote: First off - Greg's totally right that releasing all of those other ump-teen versions of songs would have been awful and boring....HOWEVER, the way he said that fact with "twat", etc. and all of the other name calling anti-vibe in his message made his solid message totally irrellevent. I am distanced from this crap enough to separate Greg's correctness on the topic from his child-like approach to JSS but most will be pissed. Bummer Greg - you take a perfectly good factual post and turn it into a boring/annoying children's game. I wouldn't be surprised if QUEEN Productions fires you for this kind of crap someday soon. As much as I have appreciated you contributions, writings, etc. to our beloved band you are just behaving like a fool.hypocrite in the extreme. JSS uses all that language and then some. everybody does. they are irrelevant too then. |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 15:02 |
.Jony. wrote:Excuse me, but I think I am due an apology here. At the top right hand side you will find a search button. Punch in my name, and bring up ALL my previous posts.Azzleeno wrote: First off - Greg's totally right that releasing all of those other ump-teen versions of songs would have been awful and boring....HOWEVER, the way he said that fact with "twat", etc. and all of the other name calling anti-vibe in his message made his solid message totally irrellevent. I am distanced from this crap enough to separate Greg's correctness on the topic from his child-like approach to JSS but most will be pissed. Bummer Greg - you take a perfectly good factual post and turn it into a boring/annoying children's game. I wouldn't be surprised if QUEEN Productions fires you for this kind of crap someday soon. As much as I have appreciated you contributions, writings, etc. to our beloved band you are just behaving like a fool.hypocrite in the extreme. JSS uses all that language and then some. everybody does. they are irrelevant too then. You will find that I have NOT used such language, nor do I deliberately bate or belittle people. Please do not mistake my quantity of posts with a lack of quality. |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 15:20 |
John S Stuart wrote: Now, any chance of a half decent response?I didn't think so... |
| bohemian 11513 26.10.2006 16:00 |
John S Stuart wrote:Started talking to yourself? Not a good sign!John S Stuart wrote: Now, any chance of a half decent response?I didn't think so... |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 17:11 |
Bohemian wrote:Why not?John S Stuart wrote:Started talking to yourself? Not a good sign!John S Stuart wrote: Now, any chance of a half decent response?I didn't think so... It's only vocalised thought after all. Besides, some of our most famous leaders like Winston Churchill spoke to himself, and he was one of the greatest orators the world has ever known. He claimed it let him articulate his thoughts more clearly. |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 17:11 |
John S Stuart wrote: Why not? It's only vocalised thought after all. Besides, some of our most famous leaders like Winston Churchill spoke to himself, and he was one of the greatest orators the world has ever known. he claimed he let him articulate his thoughts more clearly.Is that true? |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 17:12 |
John S Stuart wrote: Is that true?It certainly is. Besides, I can have a much more sensible conversation with myself, than I could with a so called archivist. |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 17:13 |
But isn't this spamming the board? |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 17:17 |
Tecnically yes, but, as I am legitimately responding to the thread above, I guess I could also claim - no it is not. |
| John S Stuart 26.10.2006 17:17 |
I agree, it is better than starting umpteen different threads to slag off the regulars, but at the same time, it is quite childish to contibute to a conversation of one. - I agree, totally. OK, that's that then. |
| Penetration_Guru 26.10.2006 18:51 |
There are two sides to this, both are valid. It is true to say that some things would have been unnecessary padding had they been included (NMB mixes spring to mind, a subject no doubt to be revisited when 16 YDFM mixes don't make the Singles box set), but it is also true to say that some of the inclusions *COULD* have the same criticisms levelled. Off the top of my head there are a lot of early versions of LOMO that (To me) differ barely at all, and yet we now find that there was an alternate set of lyrics for Mr Bad Guy that could have been included. So I think there is legitimate scope for discussion as to what omissions (whether they be deliberate or not) we would most like to see....addressed (and no, I don't propose a re-issue). For example, would the only recording of Freddie singing It's In Everyone Of Us be more...worthy of release than......Thierry Lang's instrumental cover of a track Freddie made a perfectly good vocal for (that was an easy target but hopefully the point is still valid)? As a final point, my own preference would have been to have rounded up as many of the obscure releases as would have been practical (allowing that with most of them being edits this may not be seen as worthwhile) and included as many different songs as possible. |
| YourValentine 26.10.2006 21:06 |
I think the Freddie box is a very enjoyable and well designed release. Of course there is always something left to criticise but overall it's the best release we got so far in my opinion. However, there is completeness and although it may not have been advisable to include tracks for various reasons, it must still be allowed to discuss these left out tracks. After all, we are not the Catholic Church and nobody can tell us ex cathedra that the discussion is over or useless. The Queen Archivist says: "Oh yes John, let's have minidisc home recordings on the Freddie box. Wonderful idea." Why not? There are other home recordings on the Freddie box, namely the early Barcelona versions taped privately in Garden Lodge. If that was okay - why not more private recordings? The Queen Archivist says: "JSS WOULD HAVE FEATURED... TEN (yes 10) more versions of Love Kills" Apart from the fact that two of these ten versions are videos and apart from the fact that John never suggested that all the versions he listed should have been included - on the recent LOLSOS double CD we have 6 versions of Love Kills on only 2 discs - so I do not understand why 10 versions on 10 discs would have been so unthinkable. There were other interesting tracks listed in John Stuart's original message which were totally ignored by the Queen Archivist like for example Freddie Mercury/Cliff Richard: Unreleased, Live –Time – London, 14 April 1988 It’s In Every One Of Us (duet) 2:30 - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc In My Defence (duet) - Unreleased: It's Only Rock 'n Roll - Unreleased: Freddie Mercury/Montserrat Caballe: Live Ku Club Ibiza, Olympia '92, 30 December 1987 Broadcast Live TVE/ 3 SAT Television. Ensueno (Exercises In Free Love) Montserrat Caballe Solo Version 4:01 - Barcelona: Polydor POCD 887 I would like to know why these were not included - there may be a good reason (copyright problems) but it would be nice if we were told some facts instead of getting all these personal insults. |
| Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) 26.10.2006 21:21 |
I thought that the new LOLSOS set would have been a nice bookend to the box set. It was a nice opportunity to make that 2nd disc a large portion of the stuff not included on the box set. I did enjoy a few of the new mixes on the 2nd disc, but it just seemed like an opportunity wasted. Just my opinion. |
| Queen Archivist 27.10.2006 07:33 |
John Stuart... I can have a much more sensible conversation with myself, than I could with a so called archivist. YOU ARE SOUNDING RESENTFUL AND BITTER. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.10.2006 08:04 |
Greg. May I point out that you already added the excess of: - a grand total of 6 vomit-inducing versions of Living On My Own - 7 versions of 'Love Me Like There's No Tomorrow' - 7 versions of 'Barcelona' And lots more which I can't be bothered to list in its completeness? |
| cmsdrums 27.10.2006 08:24 |
I totally agree with everything in YourValentine's last post - well set out and logical arguments to counter what Greg Brooks said (not just for the sake of it, but factually correct). |
| John S Stuart 27.10.2006 09:30 |
Queen Archivist wrote: John Stuart... I can have a much more sensible conversation with myself, than I could with a so called archivist. YOU ARE SOUNDING RESENTFUL AND BITTER.If you followed the gist of the thread, you would see that the tone of my piece was both humourous and ironic. As I am alive, well, and of fairly sound mind, I am thankful for every day God grants me. I have too many good things and positive influences in my life to become bitter about anything. As long as I have my loving wife, family and a fantastic job to surround me, this Queen malarkey is nothing but a passing interest. I may be an anorak - but I am neither sad nor bitter, and I send you nothing but my best wishes, and hope that someday you may find half the peace of mind or happiness I enjoy. |
| ern2150 27.10.2006 15:23 |
Here I go with those Monkees again :) There is a release on iTunes that contains "ALL" of their 1960-something tour. There are multiple versions of each song (from different dates), and only the most outrageous completist would bother buying every last track (I'll count myself among that number once I find the money :) ). I think if the FM Box were ever to be released on iTunes, that could be an excuse to add the missing tracks that JSS has talked about. People can pick and choose, listen to samples, and even really helpful savvy people could post reviews about the (sometimes minimal) differences between the versions. If the 2-disc LOLSOS ever makes it to iTunes or 7digital (they only have the 1-disc), I would immediately cease all criticism of the package, as I would not be forced to spend money on something I already have. Anyone else of the same mindset, or is iTunes no excuse for an "incomplete" release? |
| deleted user 27.10.2006 17:58 |
Ok, this is the first time I'm taking part of these discussions. I disagree with you Greg, I'm a die-hard fan and would've wanted it all. I think you're wrong at one point, that it would make it like 18 CD's. If you count the total time on every disc you'll see that there's room. For example you could've put several extended remixes and single versions on the albums. There are approx. 40 minutes left on the three first discs. I haven't counted on it, but I think at worst if you included everything you could have 12 discs. I'm not disappointed on the box set at all, it's a wonderful release with a wonderful book, but I'm just giving you constructive criticism. And if you think it would be boring with 10 versions of some songs, there is always a button called 'skip' :-) |
| Queen Archivist 27.10.2006 19:08 |
I say there, John holyier than thou S. Stuart.... You know when you wrote... "As long as I have my loving wife, family and a fantastic job to surround me, this Queen malarky is nothing but a passing interest." It clearly didn't occur to you that spending HOURS AND HOURS per day, EVERY DAY, of your life on QZ, for God knows how many long years now - over 4,000 threads last time I looked - is definitely vastly more than "a passing interest." "nothing but a passing interest".... who are you trying to kid? This site is a massive part of your life, not merely a passing interest. That's why I pick you up on it so often. It's incredible that you'd make out otherwise. Have a word with your silly self. But, that said, may the God you mention bless you and generally bring you happiness when you are not spending hours and relentless hours on QZ. "nothing but a passing interest" indeed.... get serious!!!!!!!! |
| John S Stuart 27.10.2006 20:10 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I say there, John holyier than thou S. Stuart.... You know when you wrote... "As long as I have my loving wife, family and a fantastic job to surround me, this Queen malarky is nothing but a passing interest." It clearly didn't occur to you that spending HOURS AND HOURS per day, EVERY DAY, of your life on QZ, for God knows how many long years now - over 4,000 threads last time I looked - is definitely vastly more than "a passing interest." "nothing but a passing interest".... who are you trying to kid? This site is a massive part of your life, not merely a passing interest. That's why I pick you up on it so often. It's incredible that you'd make out otherwise. Have a word with your silly self. But, that said, may the God you mention bless you and generally bring you happiness when you are not spending hours and relentless hours on QZ. "nothing but a passing interest" indeed.... get serious!!!!!!!!Greg: Thank you for the mail. It is heart-warming to know that you need to take such an obsessional interest in my private life, but, as I alluded to previously, my individual situation and circumstances are very successful, so it is my sincerest hope that I can share my happiness with you at some time. However, if you took the time to conduct some cursory research, you will have noticed that according to the old Queenzone board, my posts to date are: 3025, and I registered on Wednesday, July 25, 2001. link I calculate 365 days per year @ 5 years = 1825 days. Add to that 6 days in July, 31 days in August, 30 days in September, and 28 days in October (all 2006), plus allowing for leap years another two additional days, this equals a grand total of 1922 days in which I have been a registered member of this zone. If I take the number of my posts (3024), and divide that by the number of days I have been registered (1922), you will see that this works out at an average of 1.573 postings. (Let’s round that figure to 1½ posts per day): hardly the behaviour of an obsessional compulsive, nor as I see it, any of your business as to how I wish to spend my own personal ‘downtime’. Strangely enough; YOU registered on Thursday, May 25, 2006, and have posted 215 mails during a 156 day period. This means that you too post on average 1.4 mails per day also. Methinks the words 'pots' and 'kettles' spring to mind, but, I digress... Frankly, I now find your tantrums and personal assaults both inconsequential and monotonous; however, I do defend your freedom to continue to do so, even though I fail to understand the motivation or regularity behind your attacks. I genuinely wish you well in both your chosen career and in the future, and hope that fate is good to you and yours. PS: If you wish to criticise others for poor literary skills: Queen Archivist wrote: Hey there young-twat-man.... unarmed is one word. No hyphen, you pleb.May I point out that ‘holyier’ is actually spelt ‘HOLIER’ and that the phrase below should actually end with a question mark? Queen Archivist wrote: I say there, John holyier than thou S. Stuart.... You know when you wrote... "As long as I have my loving wife, family and a fantastic job to surround me, this Queen malarky is nothing but a passing interest." |
| rocks. 27.10.2006 20:17 |
Greg, if youre all complaining about how JSS wanted so many versions of the same song, then why does the new 2 disc freddie set have 6, count 'em SIX versions of love kills on 2 discs....what may I ask is the POINT! I really am not clear if you had anything to do with the compilation of that set but....SIX!?!? |
| rocks. 29.10.2006 09:11 |
yah, thats what i thought... |
| john bodega 29.10.2006 11:21 |
"- a grand total of 6 vomit-inducing versions of Living On My Own" Were any of them good? That song has been around for 21 years and I still haven't heard a version with instrumentation befitting of the vocal performance :( |
| Fireplace 29.10.2006 11:35 |
ern2150 wrote: Here I go with those Monkees again :)Don't apologize. Your monkeys are no worse than the monkeys battling it out in this thread. |
| inu-liger 29.10.2006 19:01 |
So when will we see the anticipated release of "Hangman"? Or the re-release of the "We Will Rock You" backing track? ;-) |
| Suigi 30.10.2006 22:06 |
Am I the only one getting bored of this JSS/GB feces-flinging fun fest? Greg, I think it would be very mature of you to, instead of argue over this subject, to be constructive and say "Is that true? We missed out on some things? Well, I apologize for it. What do you suggest we do?" That's what we need: a dialogue, not a demagogue. |
| Seven_Seas_Of_Rhye II 01.11.2006 19:39 |
This conversation looks not friendly to me... John, Greg, it is splashing with dirt from both of you. I don't like it... For Greg: the box is great because the rare material and demos (these demos changed all my life). I agree that many versions of one song is bad idea but why the box doesn't have full version of Ibex concert and Everyone of Us? You really don't have this material in studio quality?... Thanks |
| e-man 07.11.2006 09:03 |
the live tapes from Freddie's last performance should have been on there...but if I remember correctly Greg stated somewhere that they only found out about those tracks AFTER the box had been released if Freddie singing two tracks from phantom of the opera do exists - I want them released tomorrov!!!!! I'm not a big fan og musicals, but when I heard the title track of phantom I immideately though it would have been a good track for freddie to sing |
| Benn 07.11.2006 10:28 |
Seven seas, >>why the box doesn't have full version of Ibex concert and Everyone of Us? You really don't have this material in studio quality?... I have to say that I disagree with this. To have something that is low quality sound-wise, just because it's rare doesn;t hold any sway with me. I am a HUGE Free fan and, having bought the excellent Songs Of Yesterday box set and the album re-masters, I was looking forward to the BBC Sessions release - frankly, it's an embarassment. The live material on disc 2 has been partly-sourced from a fan's recording from the radio and is simply embarassing. I certainly won't be listening to it again. The great thing about the FM box, for me, was that it was supposed to be an all-encompassing thing of beauty; a thing of beauty it was. All encompassing, it wasn't. I'd have traded in ALL of The Untold Story, the videos, The Instrumentals and the David Wigg Interviews for another 30 minutes of the creative process with Montserrat. but, I don't suppose that would have been everyone's cup of tea. The very early rough stuff was interesting from a novelty point of view but certainly didn;t warrant inclusion completely. However, the balance could be redressed by making the un-released material available as high quality downloadable files through QueenOnline, couldn't they........? That way, those that want them can have them and pay for them as they wish.......? |
| Micrówave 07.11.2006 12:37 |
Benn wrote: However, the balance could be redressed by making the un-released material available as high quality downloadable files through QueenOnline, couldn't they........? That way, those that want them can have them and pay for them as they wish.......?Brilliant. |
| Fone Bone 08.11.2006 12:55 |
Now this is pointless. Who cares about Ibex? Who really wanted the Michael Jackson tracks on the box set ? Who really wants to know if the Phantom Of The Opera demos exist ? Who really thinks Freddie's last ever live performance is of any interest ? I don't. Same goes for Queen. I don't want to hear any unreleased material from Montreux's very last sessions. I could have lived without hearing the BBC version of Nevermore, or Self Made Man, or I Guess We're Falling Out. What I really want is compilations : GH IV maybe, or even better : a ultimate greatest hits, all the hits on one single CD. The Beatles did it, Depeche Mode and U2 are doing it. Or maybe a theme collection, a sequel to Rocks perhaps : Ballads, with Friends Will Be Friends re-released as a Dutch promo single. Now that's entertainment ! |
| The Real Wizard 10.11.2006 23:23 |
Three cheers for sarcasm! Great post. |
| Fone Bone 16.11.2006 04:35 |
Thank you sir |
| Mr Faron Hyte 17.11.2006 09:31 |
Oh I'll second those three cheers! Making it six cheers! or would it be nine cheers? Math was ... never really my thing ... anyway, carry on. |
| FriedChicken 17.11.2006 09:41 |
Great post bone :D |
| onevsion 17.11.2006 11:26 |
YourValentine wrote: I think the Freddie box is a very enjoyable and well designed release. Of course there is always something left to criticise but overall it's the best release we got so far in my opinion. However, there is completeness and although it may not have been advisable to include tracks for various reasons, it must still be allowed to discuss these left out tracks. After all, we are not the Catholic Church and nobody can tell us ex cathedra that the discussion is over or useless. The Queen Archivist says: "Oh yes John, let's have minidisc home recordings on the Freddie box. Wonderful idea." Why not? There are other home recordings on the Freddie box, namely the early Barcelona versions taped privately in Garden Lodge. If that was okay - why not more private recordings? The Queen Archivist says: "JSS WOULD HAVE FEATURED... TEN (yes 10) more versions of Love Kills" Apart from the fact that two of these ten versions are videos and apart from the fact that John never suggested that all the versions he listed should have been included - on the recent LOLSOS double CD we have 6 versions of Love Kills on only 2 discs - so I do not understand why 10 versions on 10 discs would have been so unthinkable. There were other interesting tracks listed in John Stuart's original message which were totally ignored by the Queen Archivist like for example Freddie Mercury/Cliff Richard: Unreleased, Live –Time – London, 14 April 1988 It’s In Every One Of Us (duet) 2:30 - Unreleased: Home Mini-Disc In My Defence (duet) - Unreleased: It's Only Rock 'n Roll - Unreleased: Freddie Mercury/Montserrat Caballe: Live Ku Club Ibiza, Olympia '92, 30 December 1987 Broadcast Live TVE/ 3 SAT Television. Ensueno (Exercises In Free Love) Montserrat Caballe Solo Version 4:01 - Barcelona: Polydor POCD 887 I would like to know why these were not included - there may be a good reason (copyright problems) but it would be nice if we were told some facts instead of getting all these personal insults. Excellent post YV! |