Roger´s new album - "Smile" preview

Brian May is a collector/researcher himself. He does know how this works and, as far as I know, has no problems whatsoever with it. As a matter of fact, several educated collectors work or have worked for/with Queen (myself included). Remember that collecting/researching it's not illegal. And, again, as far as nobody does any harm to anybody, it remains an ethical activity/pursuit. Should collectors never have treasured and shared things amongst them, there would be a lot less available 'in the vaults' for release... be that material from Star Wars, Dr. Who, stereographic cards or Queen! Of course, there are grey areas and even dark ones - I have addressed those in this very topic, and they are fortunately covered by the law.

I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.

The song could be 99.99% identical to Happiness and that still wouldn't guarantee he wrote it in the 90's. There's nothing to it. He could also self-plagiarise Loser in the End and it wouldn't mean he wrote the new song in 1973.

As for non-collectors not having a say in that because they don't know how it is, I can see Bob's point of 'the person who's lived in Paris all their life knows more about Paris than the person who's just read some pages about it,' but this isn't a B/W issue. The person who's read about Paris may not be the top expert about it, but they're not necessarily entirely ignorant about it.

There *are* exceptions, though: a female behavioural psychologist in her 40's may be better suited to treat a 12-year-old male who's depressed about losing a sibling even if she's neither male nor a teenager nor depressed nor has she ever lost a loved one, because she's got enough theoretical, clinical, etc., expertise to make up for the fact she hasn't experienced any of that. Likewise, a female urologist knows more about the male reproductive system than literally billions of blokes, even though those billions of blokes actually have the organs, which she doesn't.

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.[/QUOTE]

And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?"

If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.[/QUOTE]

And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?"

If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.[/QUOTE]

You have stated your point of view and the group of collectors are comfortable that they have acted legally. To date, QPL had not acted against the people who put up the acetetes for sale in the auctions and who have sold them accordingly, and the people here whom we know have listened to them. I cannot see the objective for the persistent drilling of your point of view.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

I appreciate the character judgement (and now apparently the trolling of my forum activity - flattering), but the process is actually the opposite - I realize there's ultimately no point in making it personal. You just rack your brain a bit too much. My apologies for not being fully Buddhist yet - I'm working on it.

One of my points remains - when are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread?

Have you actually read through it and gained some new insight into what's going on, or are you still convinced that music collectors are the scourge of the earth?[/QUOTE]

Are you working on it often? Because it seems to be happening an awful lot. In another section of the forum an initial response to me invited me to "stop being so longwinded and wrong" followed by the admonition that "obviously I had never studied science and knew nothing about it". I'm not sure what was funnier. Your incoherent and incorrect definition of the scientific method that followed that, or the fact that the next time I saw that post all that had vanished to be replaced with "Ah. Wonderful quote. Blah blah blah". LOL. Seriously, stop insulting my intelligence. If you have thoughts to work out, work them out on Notepad rather than putting them out on the internet for the world to see long enough to make a statement and leave the impression but never long enough to have them challenged or confronted or in many cases I'm sure even seen by their target. I have written things I regret and would like to take back because they make me look stupid or aren't properly reflective of the way I feel, but I leave those things in place because I made the statements and put them out on the internet and I'm responsible for them. They're also a useful reflection of unfiltered thoughts and feelings and a good if sometimes uncomfortable self check if one is really after an honest conversation. Ahem.

Moving on, I do think your positions are driven by arrogance at times. What would you call effectively unilaterally characterizing my thoughts on this thread as useless? It was a five page three day old thread by that time, with several participants. Did you take a poll? Further, I have all the insight I believe I need Bob. You rather consistently and predictably underestimate other people and perhaps deliberately miscast their positions. Whatever. I suspect the raw superciliousness of a post like the one I've quoted above does more damage to your position that three straight days of my chatty thoughts, so you know, knock yourself out.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

As for non-collectors not having a say in that because they don't know how it is, I can see Bob's point of 'the person who's lived in Paris all their life knows more about Paris than the person who's just read some pages about it,' but this isn't a B/W issue. The person who's read about Paris may not be the top expert about it, but they're not necessarily entirely ignorant about it.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure direct vs.indirect experience is the right focus. The better framing is perhaps the fact that you don't have to be a Harvard Economist to understand that there are options other than trickle down economics, and that those who support that model as the best way or the only way to ultimately lift everyone up are also fiercely protecting their own elitism and their own interests. It's the consistent sidestepping or outright denial of the latter in the collecting community that I find irritating. That and the rather organized and oppressive resistance to alternative models trying to arise which I see as an abuse of power that needs standing up to. Though the collecting community benefits from the idea of Fuller as a purely selfish and ego driven careless rogue it's actually much more than that. Fuller vs. the established community is also a war of ideas about rare music's place in the subculture. All I want is a fair fight and for the misuse of power to be seen for what it is, particularly in those instances where it is concentrated and arrayed against Fuller as though it were objective fact and not subjective and clutching self interested spin.

after 6 pages of this, I believe I can sum up by saying that GratefulFan and The Real Wizard were jamming at one time and had the mother of all bad break ups :)

[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

after 6 pages of this, I believe I can sum up by saying that GratefulFan and The Real Wizard were jamming at one time and had the mother of all bad break ups :)

[/QUOTE]

LOL. Perhaps that was a minor explosion of stuff better solved through PM but it has been irritating me for a few weeks now and this is the thread on which it finally irritated me enough to call it out. Sorry to all to whom it seemed largely irrelevant. That's probably a fair complaint.

It's worth noting though that the disappearing post routine is a weapon regularly deployed against Fuller by a few of the usual suspects. Accuse him of crap - sometimes demonstrably falsely - drum up some outrage, and then delete your posts or the offending parts so all that's left is the sense of outrage and nothing to look at for accuracy or fairness. And then that accomplished, tell everybody to stop talking about it. All without ever having to have your bias or motivation examined. Sounds completely reasonable to me.

I remember watching the Unblinking Eye video clip in 2009. I hope Roger won't take much longer.

[QUOTE] [b]tcc wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Wilki Amieva wrote:[/b]

I have indeed discussed the issue a couple of times with Brian and his worries were mainly about the LEAKAGE of PRIVATE/DOMESTIC/INTIMATE material to the PUBLIC (like the Garden Lodge videos, for example). And I suppose that Universal wouldn't be amused if some stuff is sold online.[/QUOTE]

And I suppose at that time you also asked him "Can I trade with these unrelesed Queen songs with a few hundred other people, to receive other unreleased Queen songs?"

If Brian May had at any publicly endorsed the trading of unreleased Queen material, the fanthology argument would be a lot more credible.[/QUOTE]

You have stated your point of view and the group of collectors are comfortable that they have acted legally. To date, QPL had not acted against the people who put up the acetetes for sale in the auctions and who have sold them accordingly, and the people here whom we know have listened to them. I cannot see the objective for the persistent drilling of your point of view.

[/QUOTE]

Legally perhaps, but how about the question of morality?
That was brought up the by collectors themselves, so it must mean something to them.


If you are asked not to record a Queen song at a convention, record it anyway, and trade it with anyone for other similar material, are you acting morally?

And if you have already broken a "gentleman's agreement" with the organiser of the event, why should you expect anybody to hold a similar agreement with you?


As long as the traders keep it to their own private backroom, I don't really give a shit. But the minute they enter the message board with their tall tales of altruism and morality, you have to question their words.

tero! 48531: I fully agree with you 100% I think that is both morally and legally wrong. Suffice to say; I can say with complete honesty that I have never recorded anything under such conditions.

"As long as the traders keep it to their own private backroom, I don't really give a shit. But the minute they enter the message board with their tall tales of altruism and morality, you have to question their words. "

That's it in a nutshell.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]

Breach of trust is really shameful. It affects my enjoyment of a share, when I come to know that promises and trust was broken while sharing the music.

This whole discussion about collectors etc reminds me of the flac v/s mp3 threads from a few years ago.[/QUOTE]

And look at all the mp3 threads here now...

...you're welcome :-)[/QUOTE]

Totally. I didn't mention it in so many words, but the discussion was productive that time. I thinl people understood over a period of time, the importance of preserving/sharing the music in lossless.