These are fascinating! I love polls with no context or explanation.
I vote yes, but only if the Argentinian did it.
Ghostwithasmile is BACK!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Lord Gaga
dave76
the reason i choosed no because i am not sure if it excists or not but i would die to hear it if it does.
pittrek
I miss the " I don't know but I surely wish so" possibility
Vali
I say yes !
Fireplace
In the world of quantum mechanics there is no yes or no. It exists for JSS, it doesn't exist for me.
GinjaNinja
I've no reason to doubt the owner's claim, I just hope we may hear it one day!
joesilvey
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation...
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation...
Jam Monkey
This topic has been done many times before. Do we have any new information that warrants revisiting it?
Ghostwithasmile is BACK!
[QUOTE] [b]joesilvey wrote:[/b]
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation... [/QUOTE]
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation... [/QUOTE]
Ghostwithasmile is BACK!
[QUOTE] [b]joesilvey wrote:[/b]
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation... [/QUOTE]
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation... [/QUOTE]
Ghostwithasmile is BACK!
[QUOTE] [b]joesilvey wrote:[/b]
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation... [/QUOTE]
^^^^^^^^^^^ This is one of the most intelligent posts in Queenzone for years. good job Joesilvy !
Indeed why would it be stored on a reference acetate. ?
This indeed makes no sence at all : but why were the LANE LEA sessions on acetate ? We all know on the 2011 remasters BM personal acetate was used for the transfer.
So the band got a acetate of the LL and reeltapes were given to recod companys. Why the acetates :
Could be that they didn't owned a reeltape player.
Could be that they wanted to own something what looks like a vinyl album.
Coul be the tapes were cleaned for re-use for other bands
Acetates were extreme expensive things to make. These weren't handed out just for fun.It was a expensive and delicate proces to make these things from the reels.
I the end :
Is Hangman recorded ; I would say yes ! For a session, not a album session, not a BBC session.
Is Hangman on acetate : No , surely not. it wouldn't make any sence to put his on acetate. : only possible singles,b-sides and album sides were pressed on acetate by the bands production company. The only no album stuff by Queens producton company: LL. And besides them: BBC acetates cuts , disco samplers etc.
The only possibilty that would make sence to me ; Queen recorded it by renting a studio before they gained any succes. Before the LL.
This begs the question - to me, anyway - "why would Queen bother to record a song in the studio that they thought well enough of to make a reference acetate for, and yet not archive the original tapes?"
something must have happened...
Were the tapes mislabeled, lost (in which case, could they be lurking in the archives waiting to be found)? Were they stolen? - as happens often - I'm no collector and I have plenty of stolen / leaked Beatles stuff. Did they fall victim to poor storage, humidity, or care?
I have no reason to disbelieve JSS either... but somebody out there, ahem HERE, surely has some light to shed deeper than speculation... [/QUOTE]
^^^^^^^^^^^ This is one of the most intelligent posts in Queenzone for years. good job Joesilvy !
Indeed why would it be stored on a reference acetate. ?
This indeed makes no sence at all : but why were the LANE LEA sessions on acetate ? We all know on the 2011 remasters BM personal acetate was used for the transfer.
So the band got a acetate of the LL and reeltapes were given to recod companys. Why the acetates :
Could be that they didn't owned a reeltape player.
Could be that they wanted to own something what looks like a vinyl album.
Coul be the tapes were cleaned for re-use for other bands
Acetates were extreme expensive things to make. These weren't handed out just for fun.It was a expensive and delicate proces to make these things from the reels.
I the end :
Is Hangman recorded ; I would say yes ! For a session, not a album session, not a BBC session.
Is Hangman on acetate : No , surely not. it wouldn't make any sence to put his on acetate. : only possible singles,b-sides and album sides were pressed on acetate by the bands production company. The only no album stuff by Queens producton company: LL. And besides them: BBC acetates cuts , disco samplers etc.
The only possibilty that would make sence to me ; Queen recorded it by renting a studio before they gained any succes. Before the LL.
dudeofqueen
ghostwithasmile, re:
>This indeed makes no sence at all : but why were the LANE LEA sessions on acetate ? We all know on the 2011 remasters BM personal acetate was used for the transfer.
You're dead right.
You make no sense at all. Lane Lea - is that a new studio? Next door to De Lane Lea in Wardour Street, perhaps..........?
You're making theories up for the sake of it. JSS says that he has Hangman on an ACETATE and that ought to be good enough for you and the rest of us. There's nothing at all to be gained by making that up.
When and where it was recorded won't be known unless the band put it out there and, even then, you'd be hard pressed to believe what they say given their previous errors and omissions.
>This indeed makes no sence at all : but why were the LANE LEA sessions on acetate ? We all know on the 2011 remasters BM personal acetate was used for the transfer.
You're dead right.
You make no sense at all. Lane Lea - is that a new studio? Next door to De Lane Lea in Wardour Street, perhaps..........?
You're making theories up for the sake of it. JSS says that he has Hangman on an ACETATE and that ought to be good enough for you and the rest of us. There's nothing at all to be gained by making that up.
When and where it was recorded won't be known unless the band put it out there and, even then, you'd be hard pressed to believe what they say given their previous errors and omissions.
brENsKi
what a f**king stupid poll...in every sense.
think about this: a long-established Qzone contributor has stated (quite a few years ago) that they had/have possession of this. so wtf is YOUR problem? calling them a liar? or just basically being belligerent for the sake of it? because no matter how many puerile attempts at getting the person to upload the track....disguised as "genuine enquiry" - you will not achieve your aims
think about this: a long-established Qzone contributor has stated (quite a few years ago) that they had/have possession of this. so wtf is YOUR problem? calling them a liar? or just basically being belligerent for the sake of it? because no matter how many puerile attempts at getting the person to upload the track....disguised as "genuine enquiry" - you will not achieve your aims
Ron
[QUOTE] [b]ghostwithasmile wrote:[/b]
Indeed why would it be stored on a reference acetate. ?
[/QUOTE]
As you say, they made it for reference purposes. Maybe they initially wanted to use this song for an album or a B-side? Who knows. Or maybe not but still they wanted to have a copy they could take home and play it over there to have a second thought about the recording and the song.
There are so many acetates out there by other bands with unreleased songs (not just diff takes of released songs). Your statement does not make sense in my opinion.
Indeed why would it be stored on a reference acetate. ?
[/QUOTE]
As you say, they made it for reference purposes. Maybe they initially wanted to use this song for an album or a B-side? Who knows. Or maybe not but still they wanted to have a copy they could take home and play it over there to have a second thought about the recording and the song.
There are so many acetates out there by other bands with unreleased songs (not just diff takes of released songs). Your statement does not make sense in my opinion.