Queen "Elite!".

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
"Got to laugh here, you're being so hyopocritcal it's laughable"
I don't see how. I'm making an observation on the behaviour of fans, and furthermore it's a behaviour I'm not a fuckin' party to. I won't kiss anyone's arse on this forum with the assumption that I'm going to get something out of it. Either they upload stuff or they don't; I'm not about to grovel.
No hypocrisy there. I can only assume that you mean to say that you think I'm somehow talking up JSS at the expense of Dave Fuller, which I assure you was not my intention. I find Fuller's "I'm the 5th member of Queen" act a little galling at times, but ultimately I don't care about him or any collector.
The umbrage you see being taken with his actions in the past couple of days purely comes down to him being untrustworthy and self interested. He is a duplicitous sod; friendly when he has something to gain, dishonest when he's been caught out, and illiterate in the extreme if he thinks you've insulted him (I have the emails to prove it, ha ha).[/QUOTE]

Agreed...however I don't know Dave Fuller well enough to make assumptions on him one way or another. If the collectors decide to share or not to, that's their business and their's alone! The sun will come up tomorrow regardless...or it won't. Either way...tomorrow is another day! Be thankful for what you have, and quit your crying over what you don't...I taught my 4 year old the same thing...he gets it! Alot of the 'trolls' on here don't, which is fairly sad!

I do find it interesting here...consider this,
Why are two collectors arguing over who leaked 'their' property...

Surely it wasnt theirs in the first place? as much of their collections are 'taken' from someone elses 'private' collection.

As I said in the other thread, copies of concerts are one thing you can't claim to own a performance, but surely studio tracks count as something totally different. What is the difference between someone stealing a copy of an unreleased track from the studio cupboard locked away, or someone going into john Stuarts house and stealing something out of his collection?
isnt it the same thing?
And likewise if it has been obtained without the permission of the artist how can someone claim it unfair when a third party releases it out to the wider community.
I respect Johns knowledge as a collector, and he has indeed added a lot to this forum over the years, but I have never sat too comfortably with how these 'collections' are obtained, and then in many cases sold leaving the artist who actually owns it out of pocket...

Not all of these things are stolen. In fact, very few are. Things that could be classified as "stolen," like the four multi-track songs, had nothing to do with Queen collectors.

Suppose a band throws away an acetate after they've made their use of it. Some studio engineer keeps the copy, and it ends up at an auction decades later, and a collector buys it. Is the collector a thief?

Suppose it's a concert recording that was taped from the audience, and a collector buys the master tape. Is the collector a thief?

[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
I do find it interesting here...consider this,
Why are two collectors arguing over who leaked 'their' property...
[/QUOTE]
This discussion is not about the property itself. Your quotation marks are in the wrong place:

Why are two collectors arguing over "who" leaked their property... ?

Because someone decided to back-stab a group of people who treated them like gold. It's not about "what" was leaked - but "how" it was leaked.

Once again - it's people with no experience in the field who are the most opinionated.

Without collectors, there would be no Hyde Park 76, Earls Court 77 and Houston 77 videos. No complete BBC sessions. Very few audience tapes. Very few studio demos.

So go ahead and keep slamming collectors. Without them, most of the people complaining in these threads would have collections that are pretty bare. The ignorance really is astounding, in the face of people explaining everything in great detail.

Or have all of these people never once downloaded an unreleased Queen song or watched an unreleased video on youtube? I think not.

Carry on..

I keep wondering why it was brought up here. What are the advantages of discussing a secret group on a public forum?

Also I wonder why DRF does not leak all he had access to in the group.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
1.  This thread would sure make a hell of a better movie than a Freddie Mercury movie starring BORAT Robert De Niro as John S Stuart and Woody Allen as David Fuller. Taylor Lautner as Hangman Acetate.  Let's get it done.[/QUOTE]


I'm not seeing this movie unless Mahler is cast as Borat's sister.

No, this discussion IS about the property if you take it back to how it landed in these guys hands.

As I stated, recording a concert and then sharing it is totally different. But bands don't throw anything away trust me, that never happens, it is always leaked by means of someone removing it without permission. It is totally unbelievable that someone finds a recording in a bin.

I work in a band and have been involved in many recording sessions, no band whether they are 40 years in the business or 10 mins ever throw away recorded material, it is all kept or wiped. No song writer wants their work unfinished spread around the world or even just their mates in the pub.

You are the ignorant one if you seriously believe a good percentage of this isn't stolen in some form or other.

I dont really care about whether these collectors are doing us all a favour..I dont collect, I dont have Houston, Hyde Park, BBC sessions or studio demos unless they have been released, I dont download concerts or buy leaked tracks.

I have the new remasters and a few of the tracks are interesting, but to be honest a half finished track is only half interesting to me.

No I dont trawl youtube for unreleased songs...I dont really care about them.

But I do get amused at two collectors arguing over who is allowed to 'own' or leak a track, it laughable

So in other words, you are completely ignorant of the process by which recordings get from the source to a listener's ears. That's fine. Most people are. But most people don't pretend to be knowledgeable of something they know nothing about. Or do they .. ?

There are literally hundreds of possibilities of lineage from point A to point B. Theft is merely one of them.

Let's put it another way..

Suppose a group of scientists have been working for years on a paper. It's 99% done, and one of the guys goes to the big science journal and gets the paper published under his name only.

The rest of his group are naturally upset, and they are in the news speaking about their betrayal. And people respond with things like "damn scientists, always wanting credit!"

a) they're completely missing the point
b) anyone saying that takes advantage of modern science on a daily basis, completely unaware of the irony

We're not talking about recordings here. It could be baseball cards or a recipe.

"Suppose a band throws away an acetate after they've made their use of it. Some studio engineer keeps the copy, and it ends up at an auction decades later, and a collector buys it."

It wasn't really his to sell in the first place. There was a great show on British television about paintings - some famous prick's painting wound up in a dumpster. Someone rescued it, and was ready to auction it off for a tasty sum - at the last second, the family of the painter intervenes and the sale is blocked.
No matter how 'discarded' one thinks a rare item is, it's still not theirs to fuck around with.

"Suppose it's a concert recording that was taped from the audience, and a collector buys the master tape. Is the collector a thief?"

It's not a legitimate recording. There definitely shouldn't have been an exchange of money. It'd probably make the collector a well-intentioned numpty who put down money on something that (legally speaking) he probably shouldn't have.

But that's the grey market for you. Most of us accept it as a part of life, and this shit isn't worth getting 'legal' over. Still, for my part I have a hard time giving money to people who are not entitled to it. Collectors don't have that problem? Up to them!

They can't have it both ways though. Hanging onto stuff that is not theirs (no matter what their hokey interpretation of the law), while saying 'if it weren't for us you'd never hear this stuff!'... I mean, seriously??

I don't buy the 'there are hundreds of ways you can obtain these rarities' routine. Unless the provenance begins and ends with 'this was given to me by Freddie/Brian/Roger/John/some other member of the organisation, and they said I could share it or sell it', then you are the recipient of something that you should not be the recipient of. Or, you've paid money to someone who was not legally entitled to it.

How much this bothers you is subjective. Me, I don't care much. But people who jump to the defense of collectors really ought to keep the actual facts in mind when they do so.

I suppose the "scientist" analogy might work -- if you add that the "scientists working on a paper" aren't actually working on it. It was in fact originally produced by someone else (Queen) and they somehow obtained a copy. Then one of them "leaked" the work that wasn't his or theirs to begin with.

But there's no need for theseanalogies as they only muddy the waters.

I get the impression some peole here don't know exactly what it is they are arguing for or against. There's just a general sense of frustration on one side that rare stuff is being held in the hands of both Queen productions AND private collectors and the majority of us may never see it in our lifetimes. On the other side are fans who are angry some of the stuff they've been trading has leaked, with dire warnings about how us mere mortals will suffer blah blah. I think you're going to have to accept that there's a bottom line -- we're all Queen junkies and we will thank collectors for (eventually) giving us our fix, but no one really likes the "dealer" and secretly we all get a kick when s/he takes a hit.

"The rest of his group are naturally upset"

Indeed. I'm not sure how the conversation got onto collecting in the first place because really, the only thing that anyone should take issue with here is that retard Fuller, and the fact that his standing in the community is built upon him shafting other people.

I mean, that's dodgy!

"So in other words, you are completely ignorant of the process by which recordings get from the source to a listener's ears. That's fine. Most people are. But most people don't pretend to be knowledgeable of something they know nothing about. Or do they .. ?"

You can call me ignorant as long as you like, it makes little difference. I suspect I have more knowledge than most here about the process of getting a source recording to the music buying public, I have spent many years in studios around the world in one form or another, but that's ok you can think otherwise.

Let me put this as simply as i can so you understand.

one way or another if a track is leaked from a studio, mixing session, record company, mastering session, pressing plant. if it is removed without the bands permission it is theft.

Sure there are indeed hundreds of ways this can happen, and dozens of people, but the simple fact is the same, it's theft.

If you sent your holiday photos to the processor and later discovered they had uploaded pictures of your children to the internet would you feel that's OK? no, I suspect not.

If you record a band on tour and share it, personally I dont consider that to be theft, as it was a performance not a professional recording, however if you pinch the tape from the mixing team in the truck it is theft.

Sure it could be baseball cards or whatever else you care to name, in fact that's my point! it is simply the property of someone else.

I see you seem hell bent of defending this process and it's head in the sand time as to where ut came from, sure not all of it will be, be honest with yourself if not the rest of us, most of it has been obtained without the permission of the owner.

Now what's that called again?

I must say something.

Something is not right.
We are here because we all LOVE Queen's music.

That's what we got in common and the reason why some nice collectors share their rare stuff as well as many others enjoy it and feel happy and lucky.

Now this forum is a place where some fans hate each other, and the "sorry, no more rare recordings" sentence makes fans feel punished.
But all they do is enjoy every new piece as much as any other kind of collector would do.



After years waiting for Face it Alone, once it was public, the excitement dissapeared after a few days listening to it.

That even happens with every new album or release.

That is why I always found strange collectors would never mention their rare stuff. I mean that stuff they say they got but can not even mention.

Hectics? Smile concerts? Garden Lodge tapes?

Is it all only gold if nobody knows it even exists?


Is the way Dave shares rare stuff bad or good?

I dont know. And maybe John or Dave know the answer.
But I just know it was good to hear an Electric Fire demo, or Brian trying to find the chords for TMLWKY as well as listening the known BBC recordings with the much better quality.

But is that noisy Brian tape recording or an old bunch of cover versions with Roger on drums a good reason to end like this?

We must wonder what Brian would think if he knew about all this fight.

Thanks for your time guys.

" It is totally unbelievable that someone finds a recording in a bin."

Actually, the "bin" was given as an explanation for the leaked multitracks of several artists. This was said on the topic on the soundonsound forum:

"There are rake loads of multi track tapes available..Doobie Bros... Long Train Running is one of the latest...Nothing more than studios dumping rake loads of 2inch tapes for nothing, for others to use as their want. People have been checking out what's on them and finding all sorts of gems..

I have all the roughs of the original version of "Take It easy" by the Eagles, found on a tape we bought for re-use"

Storm in a teacup