>Fair enough that you see it that way, but naturally I respectfully disagree. These people went out of their way to watermark a single recording at least five times when they sent it to "friends", decreasing the quality so that their "friends" could have a worse version of a tape. This is a foundation of "trust" for friendships? Clearly they wouldn't even play their masters for their friends.
If that's what they were all doing to each other, the general rule of thumb must have been "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". Whether you like it or not it was acceptable behaviour amongst them.
>These are the same people who would then go to each other's homes, steal their tapes, and then destroy them because they weren't "good enough" quality.
As above. No issue with it.
>Classic shows will never be heard because of petty and childish behaviour. If you want to side with them over people who want to spread what music is left for others to enjoy, that is, of course, your prerogative. But before you do that - just assume that there is far more to this story than you know.
But isn't that just petulance on your behalf that you just don't have access to something that once existed that you'd LOVE to have had in your collection? Them against you; you're no more or less benevolent than they were when taping and sharing whatever it was that they decided they would do. I can't imagine that any of them ever believed that the tapes wouldn't be shared more widely given the apparent "state" they WERE shared in.
>Obviously we should be grateful to anyone who taped shows, but there wasn't an ounce of generosity in their bones when it came to distributing shows like this one.
But sharing is by extension, generous in whatever state.
>This section of the forum is called "sharing the music", not "hoarding the music". If you want to sympathize with hoarders, you're welcome to do it - but this isn't the place for it.
Thus exempting yourself from criticism because you're sharing? Aping the behaviours of the territorial and childish people you've tried to illustrate.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]
>These are the same people who would then go to each other's homes, steal their tapes, and then destroy them because they weren't "good enough" quality.
As above. No issue with it.[/QUOTE]
Then there really is no point in continuing this dialogue. If you see destroying tapes and sharing tapes as equivalent "evils", then we're not going to make any progress here.
Maybe you should just ask yourself why are you even browsing this section of the forum if you clearly don't care about the preservation of music to begin with.
Enjoy the show.
dudeofqueen · Member since
The Real Wizard, re:
>Then there really is no point in continuing this dialogue. If you see destroying tapes and sharing tapes as equivalent "evils", then we're not going to make any progress here.
Queen were disposable to them; the fact that they saw no value - historical or otherwise - in the tapes just goes to show how they possibly valued being at the shows FAR more than a reasonably poor (or otherwise) audience recording and whether anyone would be interested in it 40 years down the line.
>Then there really is no point in continuing this dialogue.
Choosing to opt out; hope it helped.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]
The Real Wizard, re:
>Then there really is no point in continuing this dialogue. If you see destroying tapes and sharing tapes as equivalent "evils", then we're not going to make any progress here.
Queen were disposable to them; the fact that they saw no value - historical or otherwise - in the tapes just goes to show how they possibly valued being at the shows FAR more than a reasonably poor (or otherwise) audience recording and whether anyone would be interested in it 40 years down the line.[/QUOTE]
If they saw no value in them, then why destroy them before distributing them? Cutting out ten seconds as a watermark is one thing, but distorting them to the point of being inaudible is another.
But if you're right, then they probably won't care that the tape came out after all, since they don't matter. So let's just enjoy it for what it is.
Cheerio.
dudeofqueen · Member since
The Real Wizard, re:
>If they saw no value in them, then why destroy them before distributing them? Cutting out ten seconds as a watermark is one thing, but distorting them to the point of being inaudible is another.
Their property, their choice.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]
The Real Wizard, re:
>If they saw no value in them, then why destroy them before distributing them? Cutting out ten seconds as a watermark is one thing, but distorting them to the point of being inaudible is another.
Their property, their choice.[/QUOTE]
...yet you condone them breaking into other people's houses to destroy their property.
Interesting set of morals you have there.
dudeofqueen · Member since
The Real Wizard, re:
>...yet you condone them breaking into other people's houses to destroy their property.
I didn't condone "breaking in" at all. If that's what they choose to do then fine, deal with any consequences that come your way either legal or otherwise.
>Interesting set of morals you have there
My morals have nothing to do with it. You're setting YOURSELF up as morally superior by sharing a recording and bitching about other people.
Interesting to know why you'd bother.......
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]dudeofqueen wrote:[/b]
I didn't condone "breaking in" at all.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]No issue with it.[/QUOTE]
These two statements don't coalesce. You're a hypocrite. To you "property" is a disposable entity, and only important when it's convenient for your argument against someone posting an old tape that you yourself suggested the tapers don't even care about. A tangled web you weave.
[QUOTE]Interesting to know why you'd bother.......[/QUOTE]
Because I've spent 20 years tracking down Queen tapes so that people can enjoy them.
[QUOTE]where is the gratitude? QZ never fails to amaze me when things are made available FOR FREE that are NEVER going to come out officially[/QUOTE]
I guess you've changed your tune.
What's your MO?
dudeofqueen · Member since
The Real Wizard, re:
>I guess you've changed your tune.
I have indeed.....
vivaqueen · Member since
always a great work
MERCI BEAUCOUP
onedunpark · Member since
Many thanks Bob and also to those involved in bringing this here.
people on streets · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
But it's a wonder that all this effort was undertaken in this case, since all of these Royal Family tapes are pretty average sounding. At least with Millard's tapes you were getting quality.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. So far it seems the best sounding Queen tapes out there are certainly NOT made by the Royal Family...
To me it seems more and more the Royal Family had absolutely no clue how to tape a show... I don't think they used decent equipment. It's all so bad sounding... Crazy. Even for the 70s the "Royal Family tapes" that came out so far are incredibly bad sounding. Think about it: amazing sounding mics like Nakamichi mics were already very available and widely used in the taping community. It was very well possible to have amazing sounding tapes in the 70s. Makes you wonder what kinda equipment the Royal Family was using...
To me it seems these kids weren't really tapers. Tapers as in: people recording shows knowing what they are doing and having the right equipment to do so. It seems to me the Royal Family were more a bunch of superfans doing all these shows (and rightfully so, must have been great!) and occasionally record some of it with bad equipment that regular tapers wouldn't even consider using at all.
But hey. What do I know? Maybe I'm all wrong and JJ and co. taped everything they saw with good equipment and they have some amazing sounding tapes collecting dust...Time will tell I suppose.
