I haven't got the old version but I've heard many complaints about it.Now i found the new version and I have some questions.He mentions two shows that have been filmed(vienna&osaka from 1982 and he also says that the first night in vienna was also filmed in its entirety.Why didn't they put on any of this footage on Queen on fire?I was also disappointed when I read there was only 10% or so from the gigs recorded.That's only 70 gigs or so.He has had full acces to the queen-archives but actually there isn't too much info.That's not a good sign.He could have put more reviews and stuff into his book and credit mr.Scully for the info he got from him:-)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Vienna and Osaka footages are on QOF, but in incomlete form. Osaka's show in more complete version is on officially released VHS. They used tapes which have been sent from Japan and from ORF, I guess - that's the answer.
About 70 gigs - he probably meant soundboard recordings, not fan ones.
About 70 gigs - he probably meant soundboard recordings, not fan ones.
nono.This are not the answers to my questions.The shows from on fire are others than the one he mentions.The seibu lions stadium-gig was on 03/11 in tokyo,not osaka!and the vienna-gig was the first night,not the second.Greg says in his book that vienna13/05 and osaka24/10were filmed for the queenarchive.It is odd hat there 's no footage of it on the dvd'isn't it?the archivist says it exists.He also says frankfurt was filmed.It would have been great additions to the dvd.
I'm sorry then
The new book still has hundreds of errors, both factual and grammatical. Greg refused to include most of my corrections, for whatever reason.
70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard.
The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap.
It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget.
I respectfully declined.
I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?
70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard.
The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap.
It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget.
I respectfully declined.
I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?
Me and Fenderek have tried to compile mistakes from this book on one of the threads in this forum, but someone said that we... well... that we're wrong with our 'project', because Greg wrote it in 1994 and it explains a lot.
Maybe he did write in in 1994, so that means he had about 11 years to get the fucking facts stright, with 30 or so people helping him he still fucks it up.
The new book still has hundreds of errors, both factual and grammatical. Greg refused to include most of my corrections, for whatever reason.
70 gigs recorded... complete bullshit. He's just trying to stifle people's beliefs that the vaults are full of recordings. The vaults are dripping with recordings, both video and audio. Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard.
The 70 is most likely the number of shows that were *multi-track* recorded. Greg knows the exact number, but he has never been one to give straight-up facts. Just look at the Q/A section on Queenonline... a bunch of crap, with more crap, some crap, and then some more crap to go with the multitude of crap with the rest of the crap.
It's time to come clean about this: Greg asked me to be the official editor and compiler of the new book. I asked him how much it would pay, and he said it would pay zero, because there is no budget. No budget? So, he sits on his ass and brings in the money after other people work hard to compile "his book", for free? Of course there is a budget.
I respectfully declined.
I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?
go for it! just one question though - I've got the new edition and according to that, Liar was NOT played at Frankfurt 29/04/1982 but my recording does include it, right after Somebody To Love. Was Liar played that night or not?
go for it! just one question though - I've got the new edition and according to that, Liar was NOT played at Frankfurt 29/04/1982 but my recording does include it, right after Somebody To Love. Was Liar played that night or not?
the bootleg you're referring to is from 28/04/1982 and that night Liar was played... as can be heard ;-)
Cheers,
Tim
so, Greg has decided for whatever reason to omit it from the setlist?
"Brian himself once said every show from 74 onward was recorded at the soundboard."
That's pretty much the same as Jim Jenkins also told me... although he said that they started recording later than in 1974. So let's assume that everything since 1976-1977 has been recorded.
And I agree that it's strange that he wants others to correct all his mistakes and then all the profit goes into his pockets again.
As I already said in some other threat - next time I will help him (or allow him to use my stuff) only under very strict conditions. It's nice to be credited in an almost official book but I can live without that if I feel he's abusing my work.
That's pretty much the same as Jim Jenkins also told me... although he said that they started recording later than in 1974. So let's assume that everything since 1976-1977 has been recorded.
And I agree that it's strange that he wants others to correct all his mistakes and then all the profit goes into his pockets again.
As I already said in some other threat - next time I will help him (or allow him to use my stuff) only under very strict conditions. It's nice to be credited in an almost official book but I can live without that if I feel he's abusing my work.
Welcome to my world.
First let me state that some of the most influential posters in here have done nothing special. The work from Mr. Scully, the Live Killer contributions by Sir GH, the musical ears of Sebastian, and even my own Ultimate Collection series – are far from unique or important. This is because, like Magpies, we have done nothing more than collected the best information available. This information has been neither restricted nor exclusive, and anyone who has had a mind to – could have equally came up with similar, if not better contributions.
What separates the above contributors from the pack is that theirs has been a labour of love and through hard work and diligence, have created the best tapestry available under the all too limited circumstances of their study.
This I say – not to denigrate the above guys – but to applaud and compliment their efforts under such difficult conditions. For example, could one imagine how much better Sebastian’s efforts would be, if he had access to the studio logs, or Martin’s contributions if he had access to those soundboard recordings? Nevertheless, amateurs we remain, building a picture, only from the spoiled blocks, which remain leftover.
Second, I have nothing against GB per say. I do not really know the chap, and it is against my genial personality to denigrate or hold grudges, therefore, I am not going to be lulled into saying anything negative against the fellow.
However, I am really disappointed that for someone who has access to so much exclusivity – that his research falls so short of the mark. So short in fact, that he shamelessly plagiarises the work of amateurs to disguise his own professional inadequacy.
This is NOT an indictment against GB – but more so against Queen Productions.
If by chance Sir GH, or Mr Scully were to decide to produce a future Queen Live publication, they will find that they are legally restricted from doing so, because QP under the guise of Mr. B will have copyrighted their own efforts against them.
I also refuse to be drawn into leaked master tape sessions, (stories of Munich, and whispered USA connections), or stolen Ibex material, but suffice to say, that I abhor such dark worlds, and spider like webs, spun to dazzle and seize unsuspecting prey.
Finally, It seems that for years I have had to live with the negative image of envy and jealousy, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is I am angry.
I am angry that the likes of Mr. Scully has been intellectually ripped-off (ultimately) by Queen Productions, without so much as an acknowledgement on a thank you page.
I am angry that an archivist who has access to Primary sources, is too lazy to utilise this resource, and would rather depend on the inferior offerings from dedicated fans.
I am angry that Mr. B is viewed as some sort of Queen academic, while in reality, he is quite happy to sit back and not only let Sir GH correct his shoddy research for him, (even though Sir GH has no access to master materials), but steal the financial rewards and kudos which Sir GH would correctly deserve.
But I guess I am really angry, that we as amateurs, offer a better service than the official Queen channels, and for that I am really disappointed, because I for one rate my own work as third or fourth tier at best, and I really look forward to some first tier insight. Unfortunately, I do not believe that such quality of service (I suggest a quick scan of Mark Lewisham’s: Beatle’s Recording Sessions) will ever be made available.
Therefore, we return to where this rant began, with my thanks for Mr. Scully, Sir GH, and yes, even Sebastian. Perhaps from time to time we will get it wrong. Perhaps, we will on occasion have to return and amend our previous writings, but one thing for sure is that we try to deliver our best under curtailed circumstances, and in NO way would we ever DELIBERATELY lead the readers of this zone astray.
First let me state that some of the most influential posters in here have done nothing special. The work from Mr. Scully, the Live Killer contributions by Sir GH, the musical ears of Sebastian, and even my own Ultimate Collection series – are far from unique or important. This is because, like Magpies, we have done nothing more than collected the best information available. This information has been neither restricted nor exclusive, and anyone who has had a mind to – could have equally came up with similar, if not better contributions.
What separates the above contributors from the pack is that theirs has been a labour of love and through hard work and diligence, have created the best tapestry available under the all too limited circumstances of their study.
This I say – not to denigrate the above guys – but to applaud and compliment their efforts under such difficult conditions. For example, could one imagine how much better Sebastian’s efforts would be, if he had access to the studio logs, or Martin’s contributions if he had access to those soundboard recordings? Nevertheless, amateurs we remain, building a picture, only from the spoiled blocks, which remain leftover.
Second, I have nothing against GB per say. I do not really know the chap, and it is against my genial personality to denigrate or hold grudges, therefore, I am not going to be lulled into saying anything negative against the fellow.
However, I am really disappointed that for someone who has access to so much exclusivity – that his research falls so short of the mark. So short in fact, that he shamelessly plagiarises the work of amateurs to disguise his own professional inadequacy.
This is NOT an indictment against GB – but more so against Queen Productions.
If by chance Sir GH, or Mr Scully were to decide to produce a future Queen Live publication, they will find that they are legally restricted from doing so, because QP under the guise of Mr. B will have copyrighted their own efforts against them.
I also refuse to be drawn into leaked master tape sessions, (stories of Munich, and whispered USA connections), or stolen Ibex material, but suffice to say, that I abhor such dark worlds, and spider like webs, spun to dazzle and seize unsuspecting prey.
Finally, It seems that for years I have had to live with the negative image of envy and jealousy, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is I am angry.
I am angry that the likes of Mr. Scully has been intellectually ripped-off (ultimately) by Queen Productions, without so much as an acknowledgement on a thank you page.
I am angry that an archivist who has access to Primary sources, is too lazy to utilise this resource, and would rather depend on the inferior offerings from dedicated fans.
I am angry that Mr. B is viewed as some sort of Queen academic, while in reality, he is quite happy to sit back and not only let Sir GH correct his shoddy research for him, (even though Sir GH has no access to master materials), but steal the financial rewards and kudos which Sir GH would correctly deserve.
But I guess I am really angry, that we as amateurs, offer a better service than the official Queen channels, and for that I am really disappointed, because I for one rate my own work as third or fourth tier at best, and I really look forward to some first tier insight. Unfortunately, I do not believe that such quality of service (I suggest a quick scan of Mark Lewisham’s: Beatle’s Recording Sessions) will ever be made available.
Therefore, we return to where this rant began, with my thanks for Mr. Scully, Sir GH, and yes, even Sebastian. Perhaps from time to time we will get it wrong. Perhaps, we will on occasion have to return and amend our previous writings, but one thing for sure is that we try to deliver our best under curtailed circumstances, and in NO way would we ever DELIBERATELY lead the readers of this zone astray.
Excellent post John, and thanks for your nice comments about me. They've geniunely encouraged me to pick up my research again and bring it out in circulation asap.
I'm quite nonaligned in this titans quarrel. Neither do I have anything against Mr. Brooks, nor JSS. I agree the budget point is bizarre and QP certainly don't mind the mediocrity of their officially-approved publications. Just check QOL: gorgeous package, rather bare gist.
For what it's worth, speaking of myself, I'm actually glad that none of my information has been attained from exclusive sources. Aside from the mails David Richards sent me three years ago, absolutely every bit of my data is easily verifiable, everybody's got entree to the same records I use for musical scrutiny and the totality of the quotes have been acquired via internet (albeit a good part of them have had to be translated from Japanese but still...)
And I feel pleased, because that way the actual audience performs the labour of quality control. The one thing I disagree about Greg - and it's not his blunder at all - is that since he's "official" he can state Fred sang the first verse of WWTLF and many people accept it as divine axiom. I'm not covetous, if anything, I'm utterly satisfied that each one of our well-liked "plinths" have been earned.
Greg certainly pioneered what Martin did, case in point, as many certainly led the way for me. Interactivity allowed visitors to tweak mistakes in queenconcerts and - he can correct me if I'm wrong - that's partly the groundwork for its unmatched excellence. I personally rely more in a research I can confirm by myself rather than one I'm constrained to swallow.
I'm quite nonaligned in this titans quarrel. Neither do I have anything against Mr. Brooks, nor JSS. I agree the budget point is bizarre and QP certainly don't mind the mediocrity of their officially-approved publications. Just check QOL: gorgeous package, rather bare gist.
For what it's worth, speaking of myself, I'm actually glad that none of my information has been attained from exclusive sources. Aside from the mails David Richards sent me three years ago, absolutely every bit of my data is easily verifiable, everybody's got entree to the same records I use for musical scrutiny and the totality of the quotes have been acquired via internet (albeit a good part of them have had to be translated from Japanese but still...)
And I feel pleased, because that way the actual audience performs the labour of quality control. The one thing I disagree about Greg - and it's not his blunder at all - is that since he's "official" he can state Fred sang the first verse of WWTLF and many people accept it as divine axiom. I'm not covetous, if anything, I'm utterly satisfied that each one of our well-liked "plinths" have been earned.
Greg certainly pioneered what Martin did, case in point, as many certainly led the way for me. Interactivity allowed visitors to tweak mistakes in queenconcerts and - he can correct me if I'm wrong - that's partly the groundwork for its unmatched excellence. I personally rely more in a research I can confirm by myself rather than one I'm constrained to swallow.
Bob- fuckin go for it. He has the acces to so many sources and he still delivered a dud. I'm sure fans (you, Martin, few others) can come up with much better stuff... BTW- Excellent post, John.
I think I may make a section of my website specifically for corrections of Greg's book(s). What do you all think?
I also think you should in some way balance it with the corrections that Greg actually made in his new book.
How improved is his book? Is it 95% accurate compared to 90% before? Does the new book correct 20 errors but still have hundreds of errors?
I probably will not buy Greg's new book, as I have the old one, but I would like to know what corrections are now included in his new book.
It seems ridiculous to buy the revised book when very little has changed.