Queen Keep yourself Alive long version from acetate

Wilki: Nice to see that we are in agreement as far as first base is concerned. I also agree that although the acetate and the remastered CD may suffer from minor differences, they are both copies from the same source master version.

I look forward to reading your remaining thoughts when you get around to writing.

Ferdy: I also wrote this in the I Want To Break Free thread.

"...this... thread - (imo) has shown up all that is good in Queenzone. I know that small sqabbles and spats sometimes split the board - but when QZ gets it right - it gets it right big time.

Sometimes it just takes a little nudge from someone like Ferdy to remind me why we really are here, and for that, I reserve my biggest thank you of all.

Richard: Can I suggest that the story of Ferdy's Keep Yourself Alive Long Lost Retake (short edit) UK 7" Master Room acetate is moved into the News section, because as far as I am aware, this is the first time such a disc has been found, and that such information has ever been made public.

Thank you so much for sharing Ferdy- and thanks to all who have posted information- this has been one of the most interesting and detailed reads on Queenzone today.

Good stuff lads :)

As the local purveyor of doom and gloom, can I ask why editing a track makes it ok to share if the full version is not ok?

I could take half a second off most Queen songs (demonstrably so) without seriously affecting the listenability (if at all) and offer them all for download on here.

PG: when you put it that way - I don't know.

I guess I would say that it is not officially available and that the edit is more a sample?

As such, it is not taking monies away from the record companies - so their "defence" of stealing from offical product is invalidated?

It is a grey area - and the next logical question must be - what about unreleased edits, remixes and demos?

My own conscience dictates that if it could have been purchased - I would have bought it - but clearly there is no way I could have bought this edit as it was never released officially. Even long deleted material, (like Debbie Byrne), I would rather scan e-bay for a second hand copy, than upload - because it was officially available at some time.

To be honest, I don't know the answer, and I suspect my morality is based more on justification than legalities, but I would certainly be interested in the views of others.

To be human does mean to make mistakes, and you have certainly made me rethink my stance, but in essence you are correct.

Therefore, is my simple philosophy of officially released on the one hand, Vs fair game on the other, too simplistic, and just as invalid as the "download everything for free" argument?

In response to John's comments, "To be honest, I don't know the answer, and I suspect my morality is based more on justification than legalities, but I would certainly be interested in the views of others."

As you know, I do share MP3 files on my website, which I kind of assumed you would be against (this is just an assumption). I say if it has been deleted or no longer in production, then it is fair game. For example, I have shared the US Edit of Flick Of The Wrist before because it is no longer available. However, if it were to be released again (such as the Single Version of I'm In Love With My Car recently on the new Hollywood Greatest Hits WWRY Edition), then I would not share it.

I too would be interested in hearing yours (and anyone else's) thoughts. Perhaps this should be a new thread?

Thanks for this

PG: Of course if YOU edit a song SO slightly, it still remains basically the same stuff - albeit 'incomplete'. But if THEY do the same it is indeed considered a different version. There is still a grey zone, because if you change it considerably it would count as a fan-made mix/edit, which are allowed and in fact encouraged in QUEENZone. But those belong to a separate section - just to avoid confusion.

The only thing that counts WITHIN THIS SITE is whether the item was ever OFFICIALLY RELEASED (or soon to be) or not. In the present case, that particular edit was never on any official release, so it is permitted.

I have stressed the words 'WITHIN THIS SITE' because some of you insist on finding precise logic or moral justification on its rules. You will not find them, nor a manifestation of God. I believe Richard was just trying to make them SIMPLE. Yes, they might be a little bit overprotective, but I see no real harm in that. This site is too much under the spotlight to take even the slightest risks.

Besides, it is no secret that some of the stuff that is forbidden here can be found somewhere else on the net. There is always the HUB, for instance, which has less restrictions for sharing.

I have my own ethics on what should and what should not be posted on this section. But I fully comply with Richard's rules. I respect him, as he is only trying to protect QUEENZone. And that is what this is all about.

Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) wrote:

I say if it has been deleted or no longer in production, then it is fair game.

I strongly agree with this philosophy. If the record companies are too lazy to put something on the market, or if the record companies no longer sell it, it is fair game for downloading.

I suspect that Richard has a stricter prohibition on sharing deleted official material as a precaution in order to cover his ass against the unprodictable whims of the recording industry.

I find it extremely generous that Ferdy shared this acetate. Not only did he sacrifice trading value, he probably reduced the monetary value of his acetate.

Thanks Ferdy. I hope you had a great birthday!

Thank you, happy birthday! ;-)

Rip Van Winkle wrote:

I find it extremely generous that Ferdy shared this acetate. Not only did he sacrifice trading value, he probably reduced the monetary value of his acetate.

I hope that nobody think that I'm stupid... as for the trading value I've got a very important informations to archive with this acetate and that it's priceless for a collector. Then if someone wants to share something with me , of course I'm reaaly open and would very happy to get something I miss in my audio/video collection :).
But this is not the point. I'm not millionaire and this acetate cost me a certain amount of money. I don't want to sell it but speaking of an hypotethic price I think it acquired more value cause of the infos I discovered shareing this.
let me know what you think.

thanks anyway to all of you for your nice messages... I wish I had other rare tracks to share with you... but who knows... sooner or later I will record digitally a US test press of Queen I .. I'm not quite sure about two mixes. stay tuned!!

Hi Ferdy,
I think sharing this rare acetate has not decreased the value but if anything increased it. How many people knew about this acetate before ?? How many would people would have been doubtful about buying this if they did'nt have enough information behind them to validate that this was a real rarity and not a cunning bootleg? Information is valuable !!

Well now that most Queenzoners know all about this mega rarity I'm sure more people would desire this than ever before provided that you are inclined to collectng rare Queen vinyl.After all its not just what is on this acetate that makes it rare but also what it physically is- a collectors piece- after all this is the basis of the value and desire for Queen coloured vinyl's and picture discs etc... its not like we don't have the music already is it?

This is a real rare piece of Queen history and the fact that someone like GB woould happily sell this on puzzles me. This is the jewel in the crown of anyone's collection.I know I would love to have it but know I could not afford something like that. And for that I am really grateful and thankful to Ferdy for being so generous in sharing this item !!! And thanks for the pictures too- makes it even more interesting !!