| Queen Archivist 06.11.2006 12:45 |
I have been monitoring the chat and speculation on QZ about original 1975 Bohemian Rhapsody promo video out-takes - what little there is. There is a TINY amount of chat on about this MASSIVELY significant tape, or tapes, this monumentally important film, and TONS of chat about hundreds and hundreds of other very trivial Queen issues and recordings. The lack of text about these out-takes is precisely as you might expect 'IF' something does not really exist. I have read all mentions of this on QZ but it does not furnish enough info to be able to make a definitive decision either way. To convince yourself categorically that Bo Rhap film out-takes definitely exist, just based on what's rumoured or suggested or ludicrously offered as fact, on QZ, is folly and totally illogical. I have already stated on this site that I do not believe that such things exist. Having spoken to probably EVERY major and serious Queen collector and expert there is, over 31 years... many of whom have come and gone, NONE of them has ever seen any such out-take. Never. I feel certain, in this money-mad world we live in - where NOTHING is sacred and EVERYTHING has its price - that if such out-takes existed, they would have emerged long ago. Someone somewhere would have made a mint by now - be it via a genuine love of music history, by accident, or because of greed. Such film is exactly the kind of thing we would have featured as bonus material on GVH1, and/or the NATO releases in recent years. The fact that nothing has been reported, or viewed by anyone I have ever talked with or met or heard from, I believe, is conclusive proof nothing is out there. It's just unfounded rumour. It's a lovely thought, but it's fiction. Certain 'experts' are insisting on QZ that they exist. OK. I might be wrong. I'd love to be proven wrong. Thus.... IF Bo Rhap video out-takes exist, somebody will be able to describe an extract, or even a full description, in detail, not vague guesswork. Someone will even be able to provide a tiny extract for us to examine and then it will be a matter of fact not fantasy. At the very least there will be some detailed description somewhere. IF so, IF it exists, I can assure you that QPL would be interested in buying such footage. And... if the fan/s in question doesn't want to part with it, we could pay for the use of it. A fair compromise can always be worked out... just like we did with the Magic 86 rehearsal footage, and other stuff we have negotiated for. There is no excuse for further bullshit or tired transparent excuses. So... if it exists, PROVE IT. It won't be hard. It will be simple. A 5-second snippet is all we'd need. I am not interested in further silliness on this matter... "It DOES exist Greg, but you are so disliked that no one will send it to you." That is rubbish. Send it to a third party if that's the case. Find a way. Leave me out of the process, I don't care, but just stop the bullshit speculation and silly excuses. Those of you on QZ who insist it exists, persistently fail to offer one single tiny iota of proof. You are too gullible by half. Why would you so easily believe this???? It baffles me. Most of you are usually so sceptical and logical. "We don't like you Greg, so we're not handing over proof that precious Bo Rhap out-takes exist" won't do. This is not the infant school playground, this is the real world. Personal feelings are irrelevant, only Queen rarities are of interest here. Can you prove they exist, or can you only protest and make excuses for why they cannot, and have never been, in 31 years, produced???? Not one single second has ever emerged. I look forward to be proven wrong. I look forward EVEN MORE to featuring any such out-takes on the next relevant Queen DVD (bonus material) for EVERYONE to enjoy for the first time in history. |
| Serry... 06.11.2006 13:02 |
Sorry, Greg, but you as well as everyone else know that nothing will be posted (I'm sure on 99,9999% though I'd like to be proven wrong neither), so why do you post this? |
| Queen Archivist 06.11.2006 13:12 |
OK Serry, but if let's sort this issue out once and for all... not least because I keep getting asked about it. I am certain that it doesn't exist, but there is no harm in putting it 'out there' for someone to disprove... if they're SO CERTAIN it does exist. Certain experts are totally convinced it's out there, and that's weird to me. Like the QUEEN IN SUNBURY 1974 FOOTAGE (which was proven to be the bullshit that I and others thought it was), we will soon see about this one way or the other. Nothing wrong with that, is there Serry? |
| Serry... 06.11.2006 13:27 |
About Sunbury everything was SO obvious... I think now you know WHOM you ask to prove if the video exists and the problem is that issue won't be sort out. One expert says: "It exists", another say "It doesn't, prove your point!" - "But you don't prove your point, why should I do it first?!" etc. And it will be that school playground you wrote about. In these (the high class collectors) cases everything can be SO personal. IMHO. |
| Roy ® 06.11.2006 13:50 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I look forward to be proven wrong. I look forward EVEN MORE to featuring any such out-takes on the next relevant Queen DVD (bonus material) for EVERYONE to enjoy for the first time in history.Outtakes from which area ??????? and for which DVD ?? |
| brENsKi 06.11.2006 17:46 |
greg, i admit that i (for one of many) don't like the way you approach "requests for favours" let's face a fact or two - you are asking people (many of whom will forget much more than you will ever learn about queen) all you ever appear to do around here is "goad" people into "offering something up gratis"...surely even you have learned by now that your approach does not work...the majority of people do not like your methods...and almost as many don't like you....and why will anyone ever offer up stuff to a guy who goads, antagonises and insults...change tack and you have a chance...make the first genuine move and some might meet you halfway but - your case is not beyond redemption...and someone in a job like yours - ie one that requires a degree of intelligence should have been able to work this out....all YOU have to do....to mend some bridges, and heal some wounds....is ........... make the first move....offer something worthwhile yourself...and i don't mean offer up copyrighted songs...you could make a massive peace-making step...how about YOU tell us what IS in the archives? some real info and detail on the recordings that YOU know for sure exists....some details on which classic shows exist in soundboard or quality film (in ful)...which studio songs exist in demo unfinished (recorded) format...go on....give it a go ...what have you got to lose? you might get soemthing worthwhile back...and if you don't - so what? at least you tried to mend things and at least you will feel a better person for trying |
| Penetration_Guru 06.11.2006 17:47 |
Well, specifically the title says it all, but I'm sure if you have ANY outtakes that QPL do not have, they'll be happy to hear from you. Which DVD? Any appropriate future one... |
| Queen Archivist 06.11.2006 18:02 |
Roy... Outtakes from which area ??????? and for which DVD ?? It's very clear in my thread what film I'm talking about. The title of the thread is a rather big clue too. |
| Queen Archivist 06.11.2006 18:08 |
Serry. This is really an extraordinarily simple concept. 1. I am sure that no 1975 Bo Rhap film out-takes exist. 2. Some experts are sure that 1975 Bo Rhap film out-takes DO exist. 3. If they are so certain they exist, provie they exist. 4. If no one offers any proof, then we can all rest assured that no such out-takes exist, just like 99.9% of fans believe.... and despite the bogus claims by the 0.1% to the contrary. That is all. No more, no less. It could not be simpler. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm simply stating blunt irrifutable facts here. You cannot argue with pure logic. |
| Queen Archivist 06.11.2006 18:10 |
Serry.... Sorry, Greg, but you as well as everyone else know that nothing will be posted (I'm sure on 99,9999% though I'd like to be proven wrong neither), so why do you post this? IF THIS IS NOT OBVIOUS ENOUGH TO YOU, WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION, IT'S ALL A BIT POINTLESS. LIKE YOU... I PERSONALLY DO NOT EXPECT ONE TINY FRAGMENT OF PROOF TO EMERGE (AS MY THREAD OUTLINES IN DETAIL), BUT THE REASON FOR POSTING IT, THE 'POINT' OF IT, AS YOU ASK, IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CHUM. |
| Bobby_brown 06.11.2006 19:16 |
Apart from Queenzone, i´ve never read anywhere else that the out-takes were in collectors hands! But it is possible that they do exist in archives (not in Queen archives). I´m remembering the "Exorcist - Directors Cut". They´ve found the lost takes by accident in an old warehouse. When they saw it was the Exorcist out-takes, they cleaned it re-edit and release it! I saw a documentary, some time ago (i think it was shared in Queenzone) and the director of the video Bo Rhap was interviewd. I think it´s possible for Queenproductions to get in touch with him - i think he´s in American Idol (?)- and ask him if it´s possible for the out-takes to exist, and if there is a possibillity for the tapes to be archived somwhere. I mean, i think that they just don´t throw away the un-edited stuff!! And, it´s easier for you Greg, because you know what you´ll get here in Queenzone - more of the same!! But, good luck. Take care |
| Joeker 07.11.2006 00:48 |
not this again...first that long debate over the 74 Sunbury gig now this...no. |
| Joeker 07.11.2006 00:48 |
not this again...first that long debate over the 74 Sunbury gig now this...no. |
| Hank H. 07.11.2006 02:43 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Serry. This is really an extraordinarily simple concept. 1. I am sure that no 1975 Bo Rhap film out-takes exist. 2. Some experts are sure that 1975 Bo Rhap film out-takes DO exist. 3. If they are so certain they exist, provie they exist. 4. If no one offers any proof, then we can all rest assured that no such out-takes exist, just like 99.9% of fans believe.... and despite the bogus claims by the 0.1% to the contrary. That is all. No more, no less. It could not be simpler. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm simply stating blunt irrifutable facts here. You cannot argue with pure logic.Your logic is the logic of a child. But I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that there is a difference between 1. something is not proved to exist 2. something is proved to not exist. The former does not imply the latter. Can you follow? |
| Serry... 07.11.2006 02:44 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Serry. This is really an extraordinarily simple concept. 1. I am sure that no 1975 Bo Rhap film out-takes exist. 2. Some experts are sure that 1975 Bo Rhap film out-takes DO exist. 3. If they are so certain they exist, provie they exist. 4. If no one offers any proof, then we can all rest assured that no such out-takes exist, just like 99.9% of fans believe.... and despite the bogus claims by the 0.1% to the contrary. That is all. No more, no less. It could not be simpler. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm simply stating blunt irrifutable facts here. You cannot argue with pure logic.I can't, but as I wrote (and what you repeat in your reply) it's useless dialogue "I have it" - "No you don't have it" - "So prove it!" - "No, I won't. Why should I?!" - "You're liar then" - "Ok, but I still have it" - "No!" - "Yes..." etc. There's no pure logic when personal affairs appears (not exactly towards you). Greg you know it as well as I do. You're an official archivist, you're sure it doesn't exist - okay. Opinion of 0,001% of QZers changes nothing. It won't kill your authority. You can start on QOL (not on forum, but on site itself... Man it's only forum - you may come back and edit what you wrote under any nickname, but main page of QOL is different case) special section "Stop rumours!" and post all what you know about Queen tapes of such kind. If you don't like that people on QZ believe in these 'rumours' - just do it, "I'm Greg Brooks, Queen archivist, THERE ARE NO Bo Rhap out-takes, you can trust me in this on 110%! Regards, GB". I'm sorry for that off-topic, but again as I wrote we all know that nothing will be posted, so... |
| Roy ® 07.11.2006 04:58 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Roy... Outtakes from which area ??????? and for which DVD ?? It's very clear in my thread what film I'm talking about. The title of the thread is a rather big clue too.I understand which film you are talking about and that you are looking for some outtakes. I was trying to get some answer about an next DVD release. |
| Benn 07.11.2006 05:53 |
Greg, Absolutely agree with you on this. HOWEVER, you have no way of being "absolutely" certain that the out-takes don't exist. The fact that you're asking for proof that they do indicates that there's a glimmer of hope in your mind that they do exist. Look at the work that Spitfire Productsions have put into their new biopic on The Who - they have unearthed MILES of footage that was believed not to exist. They have even unearthed the Holy Grail of footage from Leeds University on 13.02.1970. Stuff like this will always turn up - eventually. Collectors, as you know, are an odd bunch. They offer up tantalising snippets of stuff every so often just to keep their own interest in many cases. I do this where The Who is concerned and it's fun. I have stuff that no one else has heard and it will stay that way simply because of what it took for me to "collect" it. I knwo that there are many other fans of other bands that have the same attitude. I believe that to be the case with the Bo Rhap out-takes; if they exist, then great - thank god they have been preserved SOMEWHERE. The fact that they haven't been "offered" to QPL is a direct result of the way that they have treated Queen fans since Freddie's death IMHO. The constant barrage of sub-standard and / or repetitive product has left the collecting community with a sense that QPL couldn't give two filofaxes about their wants, but are more than happy to keep dishing out the re-hashes of the past. It's my belief that if QPL were to show more interest in the collecting community and accept it as a source of future material as opposed to a dark and secret society that it ripping the band off, they would find this kind of material more forthcoming. It simply and necessarily MUST work both ways. Let's put it this way - what did YOU think in 1984 when ALL the tracks on The Works were released around the same time as single a/b sides, with only one "bonus" in I Go Crazy? I know that I felt like I'd been asked to buy two albums and all the singles in order to keep Queen in the charts and certain people's pockets nice and full of pound notes. Of course, I bought them as a good fan, but now, some 22 years later, I STILL feel that I've had nothing back in terms of a loyalty shown. OK, this is the opinion of one disgruntled fan, but if you then multiply this up to the likes of people that have the material you are requesting is proffered to QPL, you may get an idea of why there is so much reticence. "Quid pro quo agent Starling" |
| Queen Archivist 07.11.2006 07:07 |
Benn... Thank you for the much needed calm and sensible approach to the calm and logical question/point I raised. People are contorting my point out of all recognition - no change there then!!! Predictable as ever, and a waste of time of course. My feeling is simply that if something historically significant does exist, let's have it. Let's have it out there. If it doesn't exist, then we can all move on and debate REAL things that are worth debating and further researching... rather than wasting time on this fictitious item. Exactly like someone rightly said above, we wasted time chasing with GENUINE interest and real excitement, the prospect of a Queen in Sunbury 1974 film. But it was proven to be a bullshit rumour, as we suspected, started by some idiot to waste our collective time. However, now that it has been proven as a load of rubbish, none of us has to think about it any more. I keep getting asked about Bo Rhap film out-takes. I keep saying NO. But then you get silly people on QZ saying YES they definitely exist because I have seen them. But they can offer ABSOLUTELY NO data at all. Nothing. They have not seen them, it's all crap to keep certain gullible QZ-ers hanging in there in futile hope and i cannot understand this whole concept. I would like to move away from these bullshit rumours and onto more constructive and fruitful debates about material which DOES exist and IS real. That's all. |
| cmsdrums 07.11.2006 08:28 |
I think that Greg put his request very well and hasn't resorted to some of the goading, name calling etc... that has been evident across QZ between some contributors before. Once thing is a fact - outtakes of the Bo Rhap video (and all others) certainly DID exist at some point, due to the fact that the final edit would not have included absolutely everything filmed for the promo clip. The question is, does any of this footage, some 30+ years on, still exist? I would hazard a guess at yes, due to the fact that Bo Rhap was of instant significance as soon as it was released, and so any associated product would have been highly collectable from day one. It's not as if it was something that at the time was irrelevant (for example, John Lennon's first acoustic guitar was worthless when he had it as a 10 year old, but would obviously later become very valuable later on). If it was snapped up in the collectors market in 75/76, it may have changed hands, but anyone buying or tading it would have known the rarity value and taken care of it accordingly. Funny that Bruce Gowers/Trident/QPL etc.. don't have it though as a lot of directors or those paying for the clip would usually keep everything for the archives. I don't understand why, if someone does have it, they can't, as Greg asks, just provide some proof of its existence (a summary of what there is, a 10 sec clip etc...) There is still no need to part with it, share any more of it, let it be used for anything etc... if they don't want to, but they will be letting collectors and archivists of the future know that it exists without spoiling their own collection/nest egg. |
| The Fairy King 07.11.2006 08:37 |
Maybe there was some very embarrassing footage of the guys, so they bought it so it won't never see the light of day. ;) great topic btw. |
| e-man 07.11.2006 08:51 |
if someone has it - prove it - if they don't wanna share it, fine - but if you have it; prove it if you have the out-takes but feel you spent too much time and money to obtain it, and there's no way in hell you'd sell a copy to QP - fine. but prove the material actually exsists btw Greg, I've never taken part in these discussions - but I just want you to know that I really like your book, and the work you did on the freddie box was superb. steady on I say! and another btw; the rehearsal footage on the wembley dvd - was that all there was or is it a full tape somewhere? |
| Benn 07.11.2006 10:06 |
Greg, >>I keep getting asked about Bo Rhap film out-takes. I keep saying NO. But then you get silly people on QZ saying YES they definitely exist because I have seen them. But they can offer ABSOLUTELY NO data at all. Nothing. They have not seen them, it's all crap to keep certain gullible QZ-ers hanging in there in futile hope and i cannot understand this whole concept. And again, of course, this is absolutely the right way to go about it, however, there is still no reason why a collector would want to prove it to QPL given the current climate of distrust. What evidence does Mr X Collector have that, if he were to provide evidence that: 1 - the material would be used in a "quality" release? 2 - he wouldn't be persued by QPL legal eagles under copyright to "give" it back? 3 - the material would actually be released in any form at all? I can't think of a single archive release that has actually benefitted or shown some kind of leaning towards catering for the needs of the serious collecting community. Had this been or were this to be the case, I would imagine far more material would have been forthcoming. I keep harking back to it, but it's all, simply a case of give and take from both sides of the fence. If we could sort all that out, I'm certain Queen collectors would happily work with QPL in order to see that the product out there is absolutely of the highest quality and enhances the reputation of what we know to be one of the greatest bands in history. At the moment, I'd say that the band's history is something of a joke outside of the fan base and knowledge of the singles is all that casual listeners have - collectors and the official channels surely MUST look to change that. |
| Jjeroen 07.11.2006 13:42 |
Very typical that the people who claim to have information on this, have not responded in this topic yet! |
| Mkls 07.11.2006 14:18 |
|
| John S Stuart 07.11.2006 15:32 |
jeroen wrote: Very typical that the people who claim to have information on this, have not responded in this topic yet! Queen Archivist wrote: John SS. Please go away and leave the threads which I begin alone... PLEASE leave my threads alone because you genuinely do irritate the hell out of me... Let's agree to not converse...Confucius say: Bird who sh*ts in own nest - has no one else to blame. Hank H say: Hank H. wrote: ...I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that there is a difference between 1. something is not proved to exist 2. something is proved to not exist. The former does not imply the latter.I hope Mr. jeroen, this answers your question. If you need MORE information on this - perhaps Mr. MikloS could share the link to my previous and more complete answer? |
| John S Stuart 07.11.2006 15:36 |
Double posting... |
| theCro 07.11.2006 18:03 |
greg why dont you answer Brenski's post on the first page? Why are you avoiding to give us any informations about Queen Archive's and come here to request something? I dont think you're smart enough anyway, dont get me wrong but you havent give us anything, why would we give YOU any informations? Be co-operative and tell us WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT IN QUEEN ARCHIVES, WHICH DEMOS EXIST AND WHICH DONT! and one more thing...grow up! |
| Jjeroen 08.11.2006 02:45 |
John S Stuart wrote:I'm sorry Mr JOhn S Steward - this was not aimed at you, this was aimed at some of the braggers in here or other forums that jumped on this subject in the past and are certainly NOT knowledgable about these kind of recordings.jeroen wrote: Very typical that the people who claim to have information on this, have not responded in this topic yet!Queen Archivist wrote: John SS. Please go away and leave the threads which I begin alone... PLEASE leave my threads alone because you genuinely do irritate the hell out of me... Let's agree to not converse...Confucius say: Bird who sh*ts in own nest - has no one else to blame. Hank H say:Hank H. wrote: ...I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that there is a difference between 1. something is not proved to exist 2. something is proved to not exist. The former does not imply the latter.I hope Mr. jeroen, this answers your question. If you need MORE information on this - perhaps Mr. MikloS could share the link to my previous and more complete answer? |
| John S Stuart 08.11.2006 03:16 |
jeroen wrote:Thank you for that. Whether it was aimed at me or not, I guess a few in here may have been thinking the same thing. At least now, my thoughts are back in the open.John S Stuart wrote:I'm sorry Mr JOhn S Steward - this was not aimed at you, this was aimed at some of the braggers in here or other forums that jumped on this subject in the past and are certainly NOT knowledgable about these kind of recordings.jeroen wrote: Very typical that the people who claim to have information on this, have not responded in this topic yet!Queen Archivist wrote: John SS. Please go away and leave the threads which I begin alone... PLEASE leave my threads alone because you genuinely do irritate the hell out of me... Let's agree to not converse...Confucius say: Bird who sh*ts in own nest - has no one else to blame. Hank H say:Hank H. wrote: ...I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that there is a difference between 1. something is not proved to exist 2. something is proved to not exist. The former does not imply the latter.I hope Mr. jeroen, this answers your question. If you need MORE information on this - perhaps Mr. MikloS could share the link to my previous and more complete answer? By the way, it is Mr. STUART! |
| Jjeroen 08.11.2006 03:39 |
John S Stuart wrote:LOL - Duh - sorry, I just got out of bed when I wrote that! ;-)jeroen wrote:Thank you for that. Whether it was aimed ay me or not, I guess a few in here may have been thinking the same thing. At least now, my thoughts are back in the open. By the way, it is Mr. STUART!John S Stuart wrote:I'm sorry Mr JOhn S Steward - this was not aimed at you, this was aimed at some of the braggers in here or other forums that jumped on this subject in the past and are certainly NOT knowledgable about these kind of recordings.jeroen wrote: Very typical that the people who claim to have information on this, have not responded in this topic yet!Queen Archivist wrote: John SS. Please go away and leave the threads which I begin alone... PLEASE leave my threads alone because you genuinely do irritate the hell out of me... Let's agree to not converse...Confucius say: Bird who sh*ts in own nest - has no one else to blame. Hank H say:Hank H. wrote: ...I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that there is a difference between 1. something is not proved to exist 2. something is proved to not exist. The former does not imply the latter.I hope Mr. jeroen, this answers your question. If you need MORE information on this - perhaps Mr. MikloS could share the link to my previous and more complete answer? Nah seriously, that first post was a reaction on the people that pretend (probably even believe) they know a lot about rare recordings but do not. (And the ones that claim to have certain recordings but obviously have not, nor seen them. The pranks are getting more and more. |
| Queen Archivist 08.11.2006 13:16 |
Benn... And again, of course, this is absolutely the right way to go about it, however, there is still no reason why a collector would want to prove it to QPL given the current climate of distrust. GB: THIS IS A TRUE AND VALID POINT. THERE ARE MANY PRECIOUS AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT GEMS OUT THERE THAT WILL LIKELY NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT BENN, BUT ASK AND APPEAL FOR QUEEN RELATED GEMS TO BE BROUGHT OUT. IT IS RUMOURED THAT A SECOND, EVEN MORE GRAPHIC AND TERRIBLE, PIECE OF FOOTAGE EXISTS OF THE JFK 1963 ASSASSINATION, BUT IT WAS SPIRITED AWAY WITH THE PERSON WHO TOOK IT. SHOULD IT EVER MATERIALISE IT WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE MASSIVE FALL-OUT. WHO KNOWS WHATS OUT THERE THAT WILL NEVER BE SEEN OR HEARD??? there is still no reason why a collector would want to prove it to QPL given the current climate of distrust. WHAT CLIMATE OF DISTRUST? DO YOU MEAN THE ONE AND ONLY TIME IN 35 YEARS THAT A QUEEN ITEM SENT TO QPL WAS REGRETTABLY LOST? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT ONE, AND ONLY ONE, EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING BEING LOST (OR STOLEN) IS THE CAUSE OF SOME PERCEIVED CURRENT OF DISTRUST???????? What evidence does Mr X Collector have that, if he were to provide evidence that: 1 - the material would be used in a "quality" release? NONE. WHO IN THIS WORLD COULD GUARANTEE THAT ABOUT ANYTHING?????? COME ON BENN, GET REAL. NO ONE COULD HAVE THAT ASSURANCE - BE IT JFK, QUEEN, BEATLES, STONES, ELVIS, JACK NICHOLSON, MADONNA. 2 - he wouldn't be persued by QPL legal eagles under copyright to "give" it back? QUEEN HAS PURCHASED CASSETTES, 8MM FILM, ACETATES, 2" TAPE, UMATIC TAPES, LYRICS, LETTERS, PHOTOS, ETC, ETC, ETC, OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND LEGALLY PURSUED NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. HOW WOULD QPL GAIN IF IT DID THAT????? 3 - the material would actually be released in any form at all? DITTO. SEE MY ANSWER TO PINT 1. |
| Asterik 08.11.2006 16:54 |
why the caps locks, Greg? Is there really any need to be so aggressive? |
| Katastrophe Mercury 08.11.2006 18:08 |
why are we getting all bent out of shape over this? some people want to know if these outtakes really exsist, and if they do, then those people want to see them. thats it. yes we're unsure about if they exist or not, and thats okay. but do we really have to act this childish about it? seriously...this is really immature. |
| Ale_Pisa 08.11.2006 18:30 |
Read Miklos post!!!! This is the true! Many things are out! And no one know the existance! Dera Greg, I approve your works and I understand that's difficult, but if you say what exist in the archive and what no with HONESTY, I think that who have something rare can give to you the info that you aks! This is what I think! |
| Donna13 08.11.2006 18:35 |
Asterik wrote: why the caps locks, Greg? Is there really any need to be so aggressive? I don't think he is trying to be aggressive. That's just how Greg does it. The quote is in little letters, and his answer is in all caps. He has done that for a while now. Nothing to get worried about. |
| theCro 09.11.2006 12:19 |
Listen up, you, GREG; stop using fucking caps lock, is that ok? other thing, you keep avoiding question people asked you here, this is onw of main reasons most of the people hate you here...and in private life |
| Benn 09.11.2006 12:29 |
>>GB: IT IS RUMOURED THAT A SECOND, EVEN MORE GRAPHIC AND TERRIBLE, PIECE OF FOOTAGE EXISTS OF THE JFK 1963 ASSASSINATION, BUT IT WAS SPIRITED AWAY WITH THE PERSON WHO TOOK IT. SHOULD IT EVER MATERIALISE IT WOULD PROBABLY CAUSE MASSIVE FALL-OUT. WHO KNOWS WHATS OUT THERE THAT WILL NEVER BE SEEN OR HEARD??? BK: Very true. How about the emergence of the out-takes from the US studio that the 1969 moon landings were filmed on? They'd be great to see.......ha ha! But material does and always will turn up out of the blue - we'd hope that it would be turned into something of value for the masses but, in reality, the masses gnerally aren't interested in this kind of material - after all who, other than the deeply committed amongst us, is going to really watch Bo Rhap out-takes? I have a 3 hour film of John Entwistle and Roger Daltrey sitting in a canyon somewhere waiting to be interviewed for radio satellite stations; it would only ever be of interested to the "completist", but it's incredibly interesting in it's own way. >>>there is still no reason why a collector would want to prove it to QPL given the current climate of distrust. >>GB: WHAT CLIMATE OF DISTRUST? DO YOU MEAN THE ONE AND ONLY TIME IN 35 YEARS THAT A QUEEN ITEM SENT TO QPL WAS REGRETTABLY LOST? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT ONE, AND ONLY ONE, EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING BEING LOST (OR STOLEN) IS THE CAUSE OF SOME PERCEIVED CURRENT OF DISTRUST???????? BK: Maybe "distrust" is a little too harsh a word and I didn't mean that specific incident, but added to the fact that QPL have given NOTHING to collectors in terms of a quality release since......erm.....EVER, you have should be able to understand why collectors are reluctant to consider QPL as an outlet for anything. They are "better off" bootlegging their own collections in many respects. Would you "TRUST" Sony if they made an upgrade to a product that you didn't have confidence in in the first place? In this respect, have QPL explored the avenue of releasing this kind of material for download? Check out link and their Encore series of releases. This is all current stuff, btu could certainly be used for archive releases too. The Greatful Dead have been releasing the Dicks Picks series for donkey's years now. Why have QPL not gone along these lines? My take on it is that Queen is being treated as the archetypical Cash-Cow and their fans / supporters are just not taken seriously enough. Certainly, there are plenty of fans that don't deserve to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form, but why that should hold back the Queen legacy and the Queen name in terms of the quality and availability of product that is on the street is completely beyond me. |
| AlexRocks 09.11.2006 14:26 |
I have a pretty good idea as to why certain things haven't been released by now and that is that this is a business and things are released at the right times and strategically so as to make as much money as possible. It would be stupid and immoral otherwise. You also don't want to flood the market. Now how much money have the Grateful Dead made off of their bootlegs? They aren't a real band anyway. The music is just for people to do drugs to. I am glad that they no longer exist. People who do drugs and smoke shouldn't have healthcare as far as I am concerned. Ooops! Wow! Where did that come from? I must be rambling at this point, eh?! |
| theCro 09.11.2006 15:22 |
greg brooks, you need to provide some informations here before you request it... persons like you are never accepted in normal, regular life, i mean, you come here, post with CAPS LOCK and swear people, call us Moan Zone... why do you come to Moan Zone to request stuff here? |
| Benn 10.11.2006 04:54 |
AlexRocks. Thanks so much for your insight - what a mature view you have of one of America's great bands. Regardless of what their audience chose to do at shows, the band created some of the most seminal shows in history - notably at The Fillmore's East & West (with the great Jefferson Airplane on the bill) from 1967-1969 and also at Oakland Coliseum in 1976 with The Who. Obviously, the fact that Freddie was cramming coke up his nose on a regular basis has completely passed you by then......or was that OK by you? |
| AlexRocks 10.11.2006 13:27 |
Um...what's your point? I was talking about the individuals...not fans of some genre of music. Just because somone involved with the music does drugs doesn't mean that the music is about drugs or that the fans do drugs! That seems more mature to me standing by some standards and morals than justifying anything goes because someone else does something. Is that an insight for you? |
| Fireplace 10.11.2006 18:55 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Benn... I would like to move away from these bullshit rumours and onto more constructive and fruitful debates about material which DOES exist and IS real. That's all.A fruitful debate? You mean where you tell the gullible, silly and whatever else you call 'em people here how much you know but unforfunately can't share? And then subsequently ask them if THEY can provide YOU with any material or info? A debate usually involves sensible reasoning from both sides, not just namecalling. |
| Queen Archivist 11.11.2006 08:05 |
Hey Fireplace... A fruitful debate? You mean where you tell the gullible, silly and whatever else you call 'em people here how much you know but unforfunately can't share? YES MATE. And then subsequently ask them if THEY can provide YOU with any material or info? YES AGAIN, YOU YOUNG WASP. A debate usually involves sensible reasoning from both sides, not just namecalling. INDEED. FIreplace... can you lend me a tenner? |
| Fireplace 12.11.2006 07:41 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Hey Fireplace... FIreplace... can you lend me a tenner?Ask your buddy Brian, he's loaded. I'll lend you a razor though. |
| Terence 12.11.2006 14:08 |
50/50 whether it exists or not in my book,but say a queen collector collected it in the 1970's and hasnt got internet access?how does said person know its value?also has the queen archivist tried bbcs archives for such material? check a interesting picture below at the link... link |
| Serry... 12.11.2006 14:34 |
Photo session for Q2 cover... |
| theCro 12.11.2006 18:01 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Hey Fireplace... A fruitful debate? You mean where you tell the gullible, silly and whatever else you call 'em people here how much you know but unforfunately can't share? YES MATE. And then subsequently ask them if THEY can provide YOU with any material or info? YES AGAIN, YOU YOUNG WASP. A debate usually involves sensible reasoning from both sides, not just namecalling. INDEED. FIreplace... can you lend me a tenner?for the 5th time, YOU ARE STILL AVOIDING ANSWERS here and postboosting... |
| Queen Archivist 14.11.2006 13:32 |
theCro... YES |
| theCro 14.11.2006 20:17 |
Queen Archivist wrote: theCro... YESwell then, you wont get anything if you keep acting like that - IMMATURE! |
| Queen Archivist 16.11.2006 16:48 |
theCro you are confusing me with someone who gives a shit. |
| theCro 03.12.2006 18:49 |
Queen Archivist wrote: theCro you are confusing me with someone who gives a shit.i'm confusing you with your face? really? sorry but i didnt mean that :p |
| kdj2hot 04.12.2006 10:26 |
I mean I think it exist because of this right here link Thats definitely an alternative version of the "Hard rock" finale of Bohemian Rhapsody. With angles not seen on the released nor the Waynes World version. At about the 3:05 mark of the video.(The link is an mt=v newscast the day after Freddie died, they show extensive clips of an alternative version of Biohemian Rhapsody which I guess could be out takes, I don't know if this has been discussed in this long thread, though I suspect it has) (P.S. the video provided to MTV is coutesy of Capital FM, so maybe you should start there if you want a copy...if thats even what qualifies as "out takes" I'm having some confusion on the meaning of that term) |
