[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fenderek wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Imagine everyone at a Scully concert, all STEALING your show, illegally recording you. Making profit from YOUR work efforts and creaivity.
[/QUOTE]
I'd counter attack them with a simple solution and put all the shows (doesn't have to be recorded on multitrack, only SLIGHTLY better than bootlegs) on the website and charge some silly money (5 pounds or whatever) and donated it to charity. No-one would make profit from MY work apart from me (tickets) and charity...
ANYWAY- you DO realize that many people who record gigs DON'T sell their bootlegs, that selling bootlegs is VERY badly seen on QZ and that most of those recordings are SHRED here? For free? Nobody is earning ANYTHING? Not necesairly about convention- I'm only talking about THAT PARTICULAR aspect... Greg- it really HAS changes since 90's...[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is the answer. Sell live recordings and donate profit to charity - NOBODY will dare to sell a bootleg of something that is officially available. Same counts for demos and other stuff. (As I said before, this is not aimed at Greg - it's just another typical complaint towards Queen Productions).
Bootlegging can be seen as something ethically (or legally) wrong but it WAS here, it IS here and it WILL always be here. Just like when you drive at 150 kph on a standard European highway. You know it's not OK but still everybody does it. Bans or threats will not help.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I have ALL of those Michael Jackson releases you are talking about. There are upwards of twenty full lenght studio l.p.s that are unreleased by Michael Jackson and that's NOT including demos, outtakes, instrumentals, remixes, and alternative versions of tracks. So no in comparison Michael Jackson has released VERY little as well which is my point. Again concentrate people. Things will be released in due time. It is none of you all's business when that is or how.[/QUOTE]
I'm Sorry, but I don't quite get your point.
Michael Jackson is the one with a boxset and expanded versions of the albums released.
That boxset features demos, b-sides, and a (until that point) previously unreleased concert...
You are completely out of your fucking mind if you think Queen has a better release policy by any stretch of imagination!
I'm Sorry, but I don't quite get your point.
Michael Jackson is the one with a boxset and expanded versions of the albums released.
That boxset features demos, b-sides, and a (until that point) previously unreleased concert...
You are completely out of your fucking mind if you think Queen has a better release policy by any stretch of imagination!
I think we are miscommunicating thanks to the lovely internet.
My point was not Queen's record of releasing material from the archives compared to other people but that there are other major recording artists who are holding back on many interesting things as well.
Of course Queen have released "At The Beeb" which was unreleased, a couple of live c.d.s ("On Fire" and "Rock Montreal) and concert d.v.d.s (the re-issues and "On Fire" being one from the archives as well as the new releases "Return Of The Champions" and "Super Live") that had not been out before and I would imagine that Queen Productions (as well as a certain Mr. Brooks) would also point out the Freddie Mercury massive 10 c.d. 2 d.v.d box set "The Solo Collection" as well. Maybe I miscommunicated as I was thinking about the five different discussions going on in this thread. So anyone seeing "Iron Man" in the theatres this weekend in the U.S. of A.?
Of course I have been torn to shreads around here of Queen using a format that hopefully the rest of the music industry will convert to in order to expand their own studio l.p.s greatly. In the meantime Nine Inch Nails are using this format of Blu-Ray and Neil Young is doing just this thing with expanding his WHOLE catelog later this year in 2008.
My point was not Queen's record of releasing material from the archives compared to other people but that there are other major recording artists who are holding back on many interesting things as well.
Of course Queen have released "At The Beeb" which was unreleased, a couple of live c.d.s ("On Fire" and "Rock Montreal) and concert d.v.d.s (the re-issues and "On Fire" being one from the archives as well as the new releases "Return Of The Champions" and "Super Live") that had not been out before and I would imagine that Queen Productions (as well as a certain Mr. Brooks) would also point out the Freddie Mercury massive 10 c.d. 2 d.v.d box set "The Solo Collection" as well. Maybe I miscommunicated as I was thinking about the five different discussions going on in this thread. So anyone seeing "Iron Man" in the theatres this weekend in the U.S. of A.?
Of course I have been torn to shreads around here of Queen using a format that hopefully the rest of the music industry will convert to in order to expand their own studio l.p.s greatly. In the meantime Nine Inch Nails are using this format of Blu-Ray and Neil Young is doing just this thing with expanding his WHOLE catelog later this year in 2008.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Of course Queen have released "At The Beeb" which was unreleased[/QUOTE]
Is that not an oxymoron?
Of course Queen have released "At The Beeb" which was unreleased[/QUOTE]
Is that not an oxymoron?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My point was not Queen's record of releasing material from the archives compared to other people but that there are other major recording artists who are holding back on many interesting things as well.[/QUOTE]
No, I got that point from this discussion, and it seemed like it was what you were trying to convey as well... You just did a terrible job of it when you cited artists who have a better track record than Queen. Compared to Queen, Michael Jackson has been generous to his fans with the boxset. THAT was the point I was trying to get across.
No, I got that point from this discussion, and it seemed like it was what you were trying to convey as well... You just did a terrible job of it when you cited artists who have a better track record than Queen. Compared to Queen, Michael Jackson has been generous to his fans with the boxset. THAT was the point I was trying to get across.
I do not mean to be argumentive but maybe there are other things going on that we don't know about. As far as "The Ultimate Collection" for Michael Jackson it was generic and a budget compilation as far as I am concerned. The c.d.s were not even filled up all of the way with running time, information within it was incorrect, and it was not remastered in any way. It was to fulfill some sort of contractual obligations which I am not sure anyone understands because this box set left as much to be desired as was released. I think it was to fill a void that M.J. knew was going to be for a few years as I think some of his inactivity involves waiting on him to attain the rights of his master recordings before he does anything new.
btw
if Brian collected Queen bootlegs - I suppose he would be one of 4 people who could actually do that?? :)
if Brian collected Queen bootlegs - I suppose he would be one of 4 people who could actually do that?? :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eiricd wrote: [/QUOTENAME]btw
if Brian collected Queen bootlegs - I suppose he would be one of 4 people who could actually do that?? :)[/QUOTE]
He could actually assign this task to his archivist... and ask him not to sell the material this time.
if Brian collected Queen bootlegs - I suppose he would be one of 4 people who could actually do that?? :)[/QUOTE]
He could actually assign this task to his archivist... and ask him not to sell the material this time.
O.k. PieterMC you got me. Psyche. Let's get all 1980's one time! No. Let me take you by the hand and show that the BBC recordings were not released to purchase for many years until they were released as "At The Beeb" which meant that they were archived material for numerous years. Yes Queen have some interesting and exciting things yet to come. Someone from EMI have already said that they intend to update catelogs by people that he said they considered needing it SUCH as David Bowie and Queen. I also have been waiting for some type of box set since mid 1992 when I was thirteen years old. One that compiled released material in the same vain as the Led Zeppelin four c.d. box set released in 1990. So I am not a newby around these parts either.
Wow look my post randomly got placed in the MIDDLE of the discusion in this topic. Silly me. Someone must not have liked what I said. I guess it worked.
Wow look my post randomly got placed in the MIDDLE of the discusion in this topic. Silly me. Someone must not have liked what I said. I guess it worked.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I do not mean to be argumentive but maybe there are other things going on that we don't know about. As far as "The Ultimate Collection" for Michael Jackson it was generic and a budget compilation as far as I am concerned. The c.d.s were not even filled up all of the way with running time, information within it was incorrect, and it was not remastered in any way. It was to fulfill some sort of contractual obligations which I am not sure anyone understands because this box set left as much to be desired as was released. I think it was to fill a void that M.J. knew was going to be for a few years as I think some of his inactivity involves waiting on him to attain the rights of his master recordings before he does anything new. [/QUOTE]
I don't mean to sound argumentative either, but even that contractual filler album was a better archive collection than anything Queen has ever come up with... Doesn't that ring any alarm bells with you?
I don't mean to sound argumentative either, but even that contractual filler album was a better archive collection than anything Queen has ever come up with... Doesn't that ring any alarm bells with you?
I was alerted to this thread by someone on the Fan Club forum. This is only the second time I have posted on the QZ forum. This is because of discussions like this - people hurling accusations at each other and getting at each others' throats - where, in fact has it got you? You've just gone round in circles!
Mr Scully may not wish to travel from the Czech Republic (I believe I have the right location) for the FC convention, but it's his loss. There is far more going on than Fancy Dress competitions and the like. People can simply do what they enjoy - and that's called FUN.
Then there is the more 'serious' stuff - guest interviews etc. I was delighted that Greg came back this year to share these 'outtakes'. I was even more delighted that they didn't have 'Property of Queen Productions' running across them every few seconds. At last, I thought, we're not being treated like a group of potentially naughty kids. Yes, HELLO, we're the fans, we would respect the wishes of the band (or a band member) imparted to us by Greg. But oh no, someone goes and records, and so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.
All I can say is that I'm sorry this has happened. Talking about other issues regarding 'bootlegging' is not relevant because two wrongs don't make a right. What part of 'This is not to be recorded' - or words to that effect - did someone not understand? So now you have apparently ruined things for the rest of us. Thanks a bundle, whoever you are.
Mr Scully may not wish to travel from the Czech Republic (I believe I have the right location) for the FC convention, but it's his loss. There is far more going on than Fancy Dress competitions and the like. People can simply do what they enjoy - and that's called FUN.
Then there is the more 'serious' stuff - guest interviews etc. I was delighted that Greg came back this year to share these 'outtakes'. I was even more delighted that they didn't have 'Property of Queen Productions' running across them every few seconds. At last, I thought, we're not being treated like a group of potentially naughty kids. Yes, HELLO, we're the fans, we would respect the wishes of the band (or a band member) imparted to us by Greg. But oh no, someone goes and records, and so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.
All I can say is that I'm sorry this has happened. Talking about other issues regarding 'bootlegging' is not relevant because two wrongs don't make a right. What part of 'This is not to be recorded' - or words to that effect - did someone not understand? So now you have apparently ruined things for the rest of us. Thanks a bundle, whoever you are.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]somedayoneday wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But oh no, someone goes and records, and so there instantly exists the possibility that the recording could be used for the wrong ends.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna ask you what I asked Greg (with no reply, obviously).
How do you know this recording exists? Did you hear ANYTHING?
I'm gonna ask you what I asked Greg (with no reply, obviously).
How do you know this recording exists? Did you hear ANYTHING?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]somedayoneday wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What part of 'This is not to be recorded' - or words to that effect - did someone not understand? So now you have apparently ruined things for the rest of us. Thanks a bundle, whoever you are. [/QUOTE]
The person who recorded Greg's presentation did not share it with anyone. He asked permission to share it here, got an answer back from Greg, and has not shared it (so I think that proves that he did not want to "ruin" it for everyone). No harm done in the end. No reason for all this grumpiness among Queen fans.
The person who recorded Greg's presentation did not share it with anyone. He asked permission to share it here, got an answer back from Greg, and has not shared it (so I think that proves that he did not want to "ruin" it for everyone). No harm done in the end. No reason for all this grumpiness among Queen fans.
Glad to hear it - but I'm only going on the title of the thread and the aggressive and sometimes incomprehensible argument that I've ploughed through here. I still think that the person who recorded should not have done so, if only to respect a request and to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, I look forward to hearing more selections like this WITHOUT the spoken message running across them, please!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]continued...
We'll start respecting wishes of the band (or of you) when the band (or you) start respecting us, fans.
[/QUOTE]
Beside the part which I left in my quote, I absolutelly agree with GB.
If he asked people to not make a recordings, why somebody think that he/she could record.....
And about the way Queen/QPL/QFC treat their fans, all that I had to say is in my other post....
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1105346
We'll start respecting wishes of the band (or of you) when the band (or you) start respecting us, fans.
[/QUOTE]
Beside the part which I left in my quote, I absolutelly agree with GB.
If he asked people to not make a recordings, why somebody think that he/she could record.....
And about the way Queen/QPL/QFC treat their fans, all that I had to say is in my other post....
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1105346