Jam Monkey
And here is the Headlong acetate.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
pittrek
Thank you very much, I love informational threads
Queenrockyou
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession."
As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. In this internet world it's so easy to create myths or fool people.
[/QUOTE]
I get your point here. But I don't think John could be called a liar ir whatever else. His knowledge and the information hegives us is regularly accurate, so if he tells he has it, I believe him 100% (let's say 99,99%).
The fact he is frustrated at how collectors got against him can only be understandable. My guess is we won't get him share this one unless we get a little more "friendly" as far as collecting is concerned. I don't think he will share it. Dear John, what would be your conditions for getting that one "released" ?
At the moment, we can say that the Holy thing exists. Well, not 100% sure, but 99,99% sure !
Regards,
Olivier,
Belgium.
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession."
As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. In this internet world it's so easy to create myths or fool people.
[/QUOTE]
I get your point here. But I don't think John could be called a liar ir whatever else. His knowledge and the information hegives us is regularly accurate, so if he tells he has it, I believe him 100% (let's say 99,99%).
The fact he is frustrated at how collectors got against him can only be understandable. My guess is we won't get him share this one unless we get a little more "friendly" as far as collecting is concerned. I don't think he will share it. Dear John, what would be your conditions for getting that one "released" ?
At the moment, we can say that the Holy thing exists. Well, not 100% sure, but 99,99% sure !
Regards,
Olivier,
Belgium.
emrabt
Thanks for this, it's VERY interesting. Would they melt if you left them in a warm room, is it wax they are coated with or some kind of soft Shelac?
August R.
[QUOTE]
[b]Jam Monkey wrote: [/b]
As promised here are some acetate pictures. This is the Bicycle Race/Fat Bottomed Girls acetate. Bicycle Race is identical to the album version but Fat Bottomed Girls fades out 4 seconds early for some reason.[/QUOTE]
Looks like one of Brian's streo pictures to me. Haha! Seriously, this is a good thread.
[b]Jam Monkey wrote: [/b]
As promised here are some acetate pictures. This is the Bicycle Race/Fat Bottomed Girls acetate. Bicycle Race is identical to the album version but Fat Bottomed Girls fades out 4 seconds early for some reason.[/QUOTE]
Looks like one of Brian's streo pictures to me. Haha! Seriously, this is a good thread.
John S Stuart
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession."
[i][b]As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. [/b][/i]
[/QUOTE]
A bit of a flat earth policy there, but, basically I agree with you.
And if I were you - that is the position I would take also.
But you do not have to be so eagerly dismissive.
You can weigh the evidence for yourself (which is basically two choices)...
[b]1: I am a liar[/b]
Vs;
[b]2: People accept me for who I am based on previous results. It is after all, all I really have.
Like an athlete, I am picked for an Olympic team because people can judge me on my past track record.
(I think Ruth said I am 99.9% trustworthy), and actions talk louder than words.[/b]
At the end of the day - it is your decission, and as attributed to Voltaire:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it"
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession."
[i][b]As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. [/b][/i]
[/QUOTE]
A bit of a flat earth policy there, but, basically I agree with you.
And if I were you - that is the position I would take also.
But you do not have to be so eagerly dismissive.
You can weigh the evidence for yourself (which is basically two choices)...
[b]1: I am a liar[/b]
Vs;
[b]2: People accept me for who I am based on previous results. It is after all, all I really have.
Like an athlete, I am picked for an Olympic team because people can judge me on my past track record.
(I think Ruth said I am 99.9% trustworthy), and actions talk louder than words.[/b]
At the end of the day - it is your decission, and as attributed to Voltaire:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it"
john bodega
Blah blah blah... the Hangman studio version isn't even any good.
david (galashiels)
thanks for the thread.at last i know what an acestate is.cheers
david (galashiels)
now i just need explained what.heavy vinyl. is.compared to a normal lp.
Soundfreak
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession."
[i][b]As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. [/b][/i]
[/QUOTE]
A bit of a flat earth policy there, but, basically I agree with you.
And if I were you - that is the position I would take also.
[/QUOTE]
So far I have no idea who you are nor do I know that you are the person owning that particular acetate. And I never called
anyone a liar as I had no idea, where the idea of an acetate of "Hangman" has it's origin.
But I know how the internet works. Even an excerpt of some mono oldie, I once reworked to stereo for private fun, was recently featured somewhere as a "proof, that a true stereo mix of that song exists"....And I had fun, when I found out that it was just a snippet from my work....
Over the years I saw many boots offering demos by Queen and they turned out to be out of phase - remixes or just one stereo channel. So I learned to only believe what I hear.
If you have something you do not want to share with others - just don't talk about it.
Cause what's the point? Do you want others to become jealous? Does it make you feel special when you have something that others do not have? Keep quiet and enjoy.
Just look what happens to this poor archive man on this board who gets to see all those rarities but can't share them. And because he talks about it, some people start to hate him....
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
"It's out there. A member of this forum (who, it appears, has already fessed up to owning it) has it in his possession."
[i][b]As long as I don't hear it, I remain sceptical. [/b][/i]
[/QUOTE]
A bit of a flat earth policy there, but, basically I agree with you.
And if I were you - that is the position I would take also.
[/QUOTE]
So far I have no idea who you are nor do I know that you are the person owning that particular acetate. And I never called
anyone a liar as I had no idea, where the idea of an acetate of "Hangman" has it's origin.
But I know how the internet works. Even an excerpt of some mono oldie, I once reworked to stereo for private fun, was recently featured somewhere as a "proof, that a true stereo mix of that song exists"....And I had fun, when I found out that it was just a snippet from my work....
Over the years I saw many boots offering demos by Queen and they turned out to be out of phase - remixes or just one stereo channel. So I learned to only believe what I hear.
If you have something you do not want to share with others - just don't talk about it.
Cause what's the point? Do you want others to become jealous? Does it make you feel special when you have something that others do not have? Keep quiet and enjoy.
Just look what happens to this poor archive man on this board who gets to see all those rarities but can't share them. And because he talks about it, some people start to hate him....
Jam Monkey
[QUOTE]
[b]emrabt wrote: [/b]
Thanks for this, it's VERY interesting. Would they melt if you left them in a warm room, is it wax they are coated with or some kind of soft Shelac?[/QUOTE]
It's not wax as such but nitro-cellulose lacquer, the melting point of which (according to Wikipedia) is 160°C. However if you don't mind I won't be leaving mine out in the sun to test this theory.
[b]emrabt wrote: [/b]
Thanks for this, it's VERY interesting. Would they melt if you left them in a warm room, is it wax they are coated with or some kind of soft Shelac?[/QUOTE]
It's not wax as such but nitro-cellulose lacquer, the melting point of which (according to Wikipedia) is 160°C. However if you don't mind I won't be leaving mine out in the sun to test this theory.
Queenrockyou
To Soundfreak :
Well, I'm not going to answer for John, but I think you get something wrong.
First, on the fact that he is not a liar. I think I was the one who told that. Sorry if I misunderstood your saying.
Then, the fact that he talks about that acetate is not a "Show myself" thing, I mean it is not done to entertain some jealousy or something. Everyone involved in Queen collection knows that for a fact, John has a lot of stuff and knowledge that made him a sort of reference for us, that is a fact, nothing more. I don't get why he would announce something wrong that openly, as a collector I think he cares for his reputation (even if he doesn't think to that every morning while awaking). I would be happy to tell you "yes, I can confirm, I broke his house once, and fould the acetate, so I'm a second serious source to be able to prove that it exists". He is of course not the only collector to have interesting stuff (I myself have the "Absolute Greatest" box. Don't worry, I was kidding on that one ;o) ).
Now, seriously, I am 99% sure that John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more. I think he probably has received lots of annoying PMs by now, so it was not his own interest. It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence.
The fact is that John IS a serious collector, and nothing more (that said, we can like him, love him, want to marry him, hate him, want to kill him, that is just personal and another story). He is very helpful, and when he can add his help on a matter, he generally gives good advice and knowledge (for example the list year by year of all releases is just a really nice feature that was done not for selling but just for sharing knowledge). I don't know him closely, but his reputation seems quite clear on that matter.
So before the heat rises between both of you on this forum, I think you should consider this too, and take care you are not misunderstanding his point of view. The fact this is a written discussion means we can misunderstood someone else's mood or words by trying to read between the lines.
Same goes for John, please confirm what I said if correct, so that the discussion can be kept on a friendly basis.
Regards,
Olivier,
Belgium.
Well, I'm not going to answer for John, but I think you get something wrong.
First, on the fact that he is not a liar. I think I was the one who told that. Sorry if I misunderstood your saying.
Then, the fact that he talks about that acetate is not a "Show myself" thing, I mean it is not done to entertain some jealousy or something. Everyone involved in Queen collection knows that for a fact, John has a lot of stuff and knowledge that made him a sort of reference for us, that is a fact, nothing more. I don't get why he would announce something wrong that openly, as a collector I think he cares for his reputation (even if he doesn't think to that every morning while awaking). I would be happy to tell you "yes, I can confirm, I broke his house once, and fould the acetate, so I'm a second serious source to be able to prove that it exists". He is of course not the only collector to have interesting stuff (I myself have the "Absolute Greatest" box. Don't worry, I was kidding on that one ;o) ).
Now, seriously, I am 99% sure that John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more. I think he probably has received lots of annoying PMs by now, so it was not his own interest. It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence.
The fact is that John IS a serious collector, and nothing more (that said, we can like him, love him, want to marry him, hate him, want to kill him, that is just personal and another story). He is very helpful, and when he can add his help on a matter, he generally gives good advice and knowledge (for example the list year by year of all releases is just a really nice feature that was done not for selling but just for sharing knowledge). I don't know him closely, but his reputation seems quite clear on that matter.
So before the heat rises between both of you on this forum, I think you should consider this too, and take care you are not misunderstanding his point of view. The fact this is a written discussion means we can misunderstood someone else's mood or words by trying to read between the lines.
Same goes for John, please confirm what I said if correct, so that the discussion can be kept on a friendly basis.
Regards,
Olivier,
Belgium.
John S Stuart
[QUOTE]
[b]ruth.olivier wrote: [/b]
...John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more... It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence.
[/QUOTE]
That is the whole story - plain and simple.
No teasing or showing-off intended.
Just a simple matter of fact statement for the record.
Of course, I have always been open about it, and some in here wondered, who it was 'who made the claim'.
I answered that question to aviod confusion. It was me.
(A 'Spartacus' moment if you like)
If I offended or sounded boastful I apologise.
[b]ruth.olivier wrote: [/b]
...John announced that just to make the story clear that this acetate exists, and nothing more... It was probably more to give a clear answer to what Queen collectors wanted to know, maybe for long, or because there was hesitation on its existence.
[/QUOTE]
That is the whole story - plain and simple.
No teasing or showing-off intended.
Just a simple matter of fact statement for the record.
Of course, I have always been open about it, and some in here wondered, who it was 'who made the claim'.
I answered that question to aviod confusion. It was me.
(A 'Spartacus' moment if you like)
If I offended or sounded boastful I apologise.
Jam Monkey
It's a bit of a shame this thread has decended into a 'Does Hangman exist' discussion. I started it with the aim of writing an informative post that would be interesting/useful to QZ members. The Hangman discussion has been done to death before. On a personal level I believe it exists, because I have alot of evidence John is trustworthy and no evidence that he isn't. But in the end what does it matter? I prefer to focus on the records/material I can get my hands on, and that's what I am going to continue to do.
Soundfreak
Don't worry Olivier, I have nothing against anyone here and I'm not intending to attack any people.
I'm also a long time collector - although I may collect a bit different.
And I was only making a general comment on certain kinds of collectors I have met more than once in my life.
I did not adress this to someone special. This is something I always say when collectors "own" something that they don't want to share with anybody : Don't talk about it ! ;-)
I'm also a long time collector - although I may collect a bit different.
And I was only making a general comment on certain kinds of collectors I have met more than once in my life.
I did not adress this to someone special. This is something I always say when collectors "own" something that they don't want to share with anybody : Don't talk about it ! ;-)