A Fan's Property, Lost by Greg Brooks in the Last Century, circa 1999

What a shame... that Marquee tape turned out to be fake :((( Man, it's so irritating and such a let down. I hope that the fan that wanted money for the tape didn't get it but I suppose that some people would enjoy a story in which QProd is ripped off by a fan.....

So... a question remains if this show was taped or recorded by a band at all. I guess we can be happy that we've got at least pictures from this gig.

Sir GH / The Real Wizard, now you can update the info on your tremendous website about that gig.

I've been lurking here since 1999 and every time Greg Brooks is on the verge of getting my sympathy he says something like "Moanzone" that gets on my nerves. We know there are irritating people here. We have to deal with them but labeling the whole site because of those people is unprofessional for someone representing Queen.

Your original post on this seem fair enough Greg, and I can understand you wanting to state some facts from your side.. Two questions arise for me:

Brian asked John for his copy of Hangman, and you guys wanted to include it on a release. Did Brian's memory at the time solely lead you all to believe that a studio version of the song definitely existed, or were there other indications, or were you 'calling his bluff'? As you have now recently stated a studio version "does not exist" (as opposed to you don't have a copy), is this now definitive and Brian wrongly remembered it being recorded and you have proof it wasn't (if you can prove a negative)?

You invited John to the launch of the Freddie box set; a number of fan club members (myself included) were invited to this also and were issued with invites and passes for this, which only a few days before the event were rescinded and our invitations scrapped. Can you advise why this was?

Thanks

[QUOTE] [b]scottmax wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Kuijpy wrote:[/b]
I dont believe a word what GB says....[/QUOTE]
Tbh I don't think the majority do....
For all of his talk, there's very little to show for it for US, the fans.
How long does it take to write sleeve notes, take a few pictures, because he doesn't do the so called remastering does he?
The list of live recordings he came out with a few years ago didn't nothing to enhance his case.
In my eyes, until he offers something to this site, and not just coming and besmirching people, he may as well stay away [/QUOTE]

this ^^^

[QUOTE] [b]Rick wrote:[/b]
Can we have more balloons on the next release?[/QUOTE]

AND this ^^^

Since we have a person of authority here at last, I have only one question: Are UFOs real?

Cheers!

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
and why should JSS have to prove anything? GB has called him a liar - without proof .[/QUOTE]

.[/QUOTE]

Why?
Because if it wasn´t for all the dicksucking that goes around on this site towards the "Big" collectors, there´s no way people would believe that the "Hangman" acetate exists, let alone be in the hands of JSS.

John S Stuart isn´t the average Joe who comes here and makes claims. He is a well respected Queen collector and if i´m correct he contributed the the mag "Record Collector", so what he says has a certain impact.

John S Stuart claims that he has an item of which there is no trace on the Internet. No one ever heard it or seen it other than him. Brian May doesn´t remember recording this song in the studio with Queen. In forty years only one person claimed this, and we don´t even know who owned it before him, or what´s the story behind the recording of such acetate, and how it got to the hands of collectors - or at least i don´t know! Maybe you or anyone reading this knows, but i don´t know, so feel free to tell me.

According to Greg, he was given all options to come to a professional studio and let a professional transfer it to digital. But being the collector he is he probably did this already in a professional studio, because he knows that an acetate cannot be played many times. Specially when there´s ONLY ONE known to exist in ALL world.
And by the way Brenski, he was given the chance you mentioned in other post about not losing the acetate out of sight. He refused!
When Brian May was included in this negociation, he went quiet, and you don´t think he has to prove he has this?

After what Greg said in this thread, JSS clearly needs to prove that it exists, even for catalogue purposes, and to let fans know that this is true. Do you think he ever wrote in Record Collector about an item that wasn´t proved it existed in the first place? How can collectors put a tag price on an item we don´t know exists?

If John comes here and says he was taking the piss out of QP, i can understand the humour. I´m all for a good prank, but if he continues to claim to Queen fans that he owns this he needs to prove to the Queen community that it exists. It shows respect for the Queen world.

One thing is to say he has it, another thing is to deny Brian May the chance to hear it. It doesn´t make sense!

I´m not calling JSS a liar, but i´m using my right to scrutinize what people say in public and reach my own conclusions based on their words and behaviour. You can interpret this anyway you want!

So basically, John S. Stuart is nothing but a massive fraud. This probably means Fanthology is a load of bovine excrement as well, well they probably did have what little they have but David R. Fuller heroically leaked all of it, though unfortunately, Greg and QPL were siding with Fanthology at the time.
I am no longer expecting anything from John S. Stuart or anyone else involved in Fanthology. If there's anything new going to be released, I expect it from either QPL or David R. Fuller. In fact, I think QPL should team with Fuller to release the ultimate demo collection.
I suspect the Fanthology people might have even been the ones that really flagged sikke's videos on YouTube for copyright infringement in QPL's name. Most probably, sikke was about to release more stuff that Fanthology was sitting on (though probably not much) and so had to be stopped.

Greg - could you do a Q&A some time on this forum about Queen rarities that exist in the vault?

Sorry there are so many assholes who use Queenzone as an opportunity to bitch and moan.

Greg could do that, but he wouldn't, he dont gives a fuck about other fans. Its just him, him, him, him and him.

It took over a year to make the Solo collection, you just transfer the songs to cd, and chose some pictures everybody allready had seen.

Fuck Off and Die you Fag

Greg,

OK - I'm hearing you loud and clear and your recollection of the saga clearly presents some issues around Hangman.

As much as I take John S Stuart at his word that he does indeed have the "Hangman" acetate, given his history and status in the world of Queen collecting, I'm also struggling to understand just why it is that there hasn't been even just a single picture of it presented as evidence. John has absolutely no need whatsoever to justify his claim as he himself knows of its existence in his collection, but, if for nothing other than shoving two fingers up at you and QPL, I'd have thought he'd have given some pictorial evidence by now. He hasn't and that's entirely his prerogative.

This then leads to the question based on your comment that "Hangman" would have been included had you been able to transfer it from whatever medium:

If "Hangman" wasn't available for the bonus disc of the recent re-issue of "Queen", what else was considered but left off? "Silver Salmon"? "Rock N Roll Medley"? "Polar Bear"? Given the paucity of what did emerge on the bonus discs against what has previously been played at Fan Club Conventions and is already available in collecting circles, its tough to actually take your statement at face value; seems more like a ruse to me in order to just get hold of the recording that QPL should have but actually doesn't.

As for his Ibex tape, had it been mine, I'd still be struggling to get over someone I'd trusted with it being responsible for its loss. Regardless of its monetary value, something that I'd invested a lot of time and effort in acquiring would, necessarily, become very dear to me in terms of its place in the overall Queen canon. You can't blame him or anyone else that knows the story / history behind it for holding a grudge and failing to trust you or anyone else connected with you and Queen releases. Now you refer to the loss / theft in pretty flippant terms, despite making apologies in previous posts, it seems like you're expecting John and anyone else who either cares about something like this being lost to the Queen community, to share your same "Oh well....." attitude.

ps
As for pseudonyms, I had to create a new account here simply because I couldn't remember my original login details after staying away from here for a while. If you're that bothered by it, my previous screen name was bennkempster (space between the last n and the k and you have my real name).

>> As much as I take John S Stuart at his word that he does indeed have the "Hangman" acetate, given his history and status in the world of Queen collecting, << So basically, judging his claim on an ad hominem reason ("I like him/he has a good reputation, so it must be true") rather than cold, hard evidence, and dismissing any evidence to the contrary just because it does not fit your view. His history and status are irrelevant, he made a claim, he needs to back it up with cold, hard evidence otherwise the claim is unsupported and is to be given no consideration. >> I'm also struggling to understand just why it is that there hasn't been even just a single picture of it presented as evidence. John has absolutely no need whatsoever to justify his claim as he himself knows of its existence in his collection, << What he knows himself is not evidence as we can not independently examine it. Even a photo would be circumstantial evidence at best because it's easy to find any old acetate, slap a "Hangman" sticker on it, and pretend it's the real deal. Now a photo accompanied by a recording would be damned good evidence. >> but, if for nothing other than shoving two fingers up at you and QPL, I'd have thought he'd have given some pictorial evidence by now. He hasn't and that's entirely his prerogative. << And it makes the word of John S. Stuart just that - the word of John S. Stuart, without any backing. And it should be taken as such. Believing it because of his history and/or status is nothing but an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy.

Actually I don't get it why no one in the band or the studio stuff knows about a studio version of "Hangman". I mean they played it many times on stage, rehearsed it and I doubt that a complete song wasn't captured on tape. They seemed to be satisfied with it so far that they played it live to the audience. If you take "Let me In Your Heart Again" as an example. In this case they knew it's in the vaults althought it never left the studio as Hnagman did. Okay, it's 10 years younger but actually it's a joke to loose a complete song or don't know if it is recorded in the studio and brought on an acetate or whatever.
regards,
W.

- Double-U: Sometimes, songs can be live only. There was one song by Bon Jovi, I forgot which now, but it was about 2000 or so, and it was only released as a live single. Hangman could be in a similar situation.

[QUOTE] [b]mr mason wrote:[/b]

You the man![/QUOTE]

yes

[QUOTE] [b]Battler wrote:[/b]

- Double-U: Sometimes, songs can be live only. There was one song by Bon Jovi, I forgot which now, but it was about 2000 or so, and it was only released as a live single. Hangman could be in a similar situation.[/QUOTE]

Maybe! But in this case I know I never made a studio version of this song and that makes an acetate impossible so that I'm able to blame someone to be a liar if he claimes to have one. But instead of this QPL asked for it.

regards,
W.