Those people crying for only lossles quality....I didn´t see them sharing anything at all here.
Its easy to argue, when you still keep sitting with your arse on your collection, only offering 20 sec snippets, letting people know, what they COULD have....( Drammen, 31.3.74, Leiden...etc.)
For myself, I always prefer flac etc, but as long as I don´t have a better quality than mp3, I keep it, until.....until all the lossless-only-freaks share their stuff.
Making a big noise here, is cheap. Do something.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
a kazina jebote koji asevi
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"But at the moment, this the reality of the situation: Queenzone is the primary reason why so many recordings are left unheard and unseen"
You must be joking. The main reason why recordings are "unheard or unseen" is that you do not trade with the people who have them. How can you blame Queenzone for that. Just look which recordings have been shared here in the last year - loads of concerts and videos in good quality. It's true that some sharers retired because of the attitude of many people demanding other formats but you cannot deny that many concerts which were quite "new" have been shared here in nice quality. For example Liverpool 73 was shared in the same quality as the copy that was sold on the convention 2004. All the concerts provided by whitemanadmin and his "secret provider" were the best possible available version. Previously rare videos like the St. Paul DVD were shared in the best available version etc etc[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right from that point of view. But since then, have you noticed that no new recordings have been unearthed? The Queen trading world has been virtually silent since. I have many contacts who say they refuse to trade their rare Queen because, I quote one of them, "it will just be shared on Queenzone within a month". To the holders of the jewels, this is a negative thing, because as you know, rare recordings are good trade bait.
There's a large group of people who want all of the best recordings to be found and shared, and I am part of that group. But in the Queen world, unfortunately, this just causes most owners of the great recordings to retreat into obscurity. This is not so for many other bands, but that's the reality of our situation.
Please don't come down on me for this. I'm just reporting things as they are. I wish, just as much as anyone else, that it were different.
[QUOTE]Queenzone is not the center of the world, there is collecting outside of QZ.[/QUOTE]
Right, I fully realize this. But as I've said above, QZ seems to be the primary reason why new recordings are kept under wraps these days. Have you seen anything great emerge lately? The owners of the rare recordings are thinking twice now. Tell me, other than the complete Dallas 78 (which was shared by the bootlegger, not a collector), name me one truly interesting Queen recording that has been shared online lately at a place other than Queenzone.
I'm doing my best to be optimistic about Fenderek's project to search for the best recordings together as a group, but it will be quite the long journey. Have you offered to help?
[QUOTE]Btw, your Copenhagen 77 audio recording was mp3 sourced and you traded it. The standard lossless version came from Dimeadozen and was re-shared on Queenzone. In this case it was the sharers who provided the lossless format and not the quality conscious trader.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know, and I apologize for that. That was years ago, and before I knew how to detect lossy audio.
You must be joking. The main reason why recordings are "unheard or unseen" is that you do not trade with the people who have them. How can you blame Queenzone for that. Just look which recordings have been shared here in the last year - loads of concerts and videos in good quality. It's true that some sharers retired because of the attitude of many people demanding other formats but you cannot deny that many concerts which were quite "new" have been shared here in nice quality. For example Liverpool 73 was shared in the same quality as the copy that was sold on the convention 2004. All the concerts provided by whitemanadmin and his "secret provider" were the best possible available version. Previously rare videos like the St. Paul DVD were shared in the best available version etc etc[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right from that point of view. But since then, have you noticed that no new recordings have been unearthed? The Queen trading world has been virtually silent since. I have many contacts who say they refuse to trade their rare Queen because, I quote one of them, "it will just be shared on Queenzone within a month". To the holders of the jewels, this is a negative thing, because as you know, rare recordings are good trade bait.
There's a large group of people who want all of the best recordings to be found and shared, and I am part of that group. But in the Queen world, unfortunately, this just causes most owners of the great recordings to retreat into obscurity. This is not so for many other bands, but that's the reality of our situation.
Please don't come down on me for this. I'm just reporting things as they are. I wish, just as much as anyone else, that it were different.
[QUOTE]Queenzone is not the center of the world, there is collecting outside of QZ.[/QUOTE]
Right, I fully realize this. But as I've said above, QZ seems to be the primary reason why new recordings are kept under wraps these days. Have you seen anything great emerge lately? The owners of the rare recordings are thinking twice now. Tell me, other than the complete Dallas 78 (which was shared by the bootlegger, not a collector), name me one truly interesting Queen recording that has been shared online lately at a place other than Queenzone.
I'm doing my best to be optimistic about Fenderek's project to search for the best recordings together as a group, but it will be quite the long journey. Have you offered to help?
[QUOTE]Btw, your Copenhagen 77 audio recording was mp3 sourced and you traded it. The standard lossless version came from Dimeadozen and was re-shared on Queenzone. In this case it was the sharers who provided the lossless format and not the quality conscious trader.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know, and I apologize for that. That was years ago, and before I knew how to detect lossy audio.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bullshit! The primary reason is that some collectors want to have unique stuff and they never trade their recordings![/QUOTE]
Right, and it's because so many recordings are shared here that they don't want their recordings to be shared. So then we agree.
[QUOTE]Or they place restrictions on some recordings! (And why do I have a feeling that you behave in the same way?...). I know collectors who would rather die instead of spreading their recordings - that's absolutely ridiculous![/QUOTE]
I agree. But, occasionally I must have a restriction. If I wouldn't do that, then my chances of getting rare recordings would be virtually zero. If I was offered the Liverpool 77 soundboard tomorrow, and I had previously chosen to share my only rarities here, what would I offer this person in exchange?
[QUOTE]Yes, if people trade, they should make absolutely clear what they trade.[/QUOTE]
And that's the problem. It's because people haven't taken care of their recordings that we have this problem. Just recently a "flac" version of Sapporo 79 was shared, but it was encoded from mp3. By eliminating mp3 files, that would be one way of cleaning up the tradepool. Of course this isn't practical, so that's why people should simply label their recordings properly. But at the moment, most don't do that. Another part of the problem is that everyone gives their bootlegs their own name. That confuses the issue even more. Every recording should have a date, venue, source, lineage, and title (only if it's a silver release), at least.
Right, and it's because so many recordings are shared here that they don't want their recordings to be shared. So then we agree.
[QUOTE]Or they place restrictions on some recordings! (And why do I have a feeling that you behave in the same way?...). I know collectors who would rather die instead of spreading their recordings - that's absolutely ridiculous![/QUOTE]
I agree. But, occasionally I must have a restriction. If I wouldn't do that, then my chances of getting rare recordings would be virtually zero. If I was offered the Liverpool 77 soundboard tomorrow, and I had previously chosen to share my only rarities here, what would I offer this person in exchange?
[QUOTE]Yes, if people trade, they should make absolutely clear what they trade.[/QUOTE]
And that's the problem. It's because people haven't taken care of their recordings that we have this problem. Just recently a "flac" version of Sapporo 79 was shared, but it was encoded from mp3. By eliminating mp3 files, that would be one way of cleaning up the tradepool. Of course this isn't practical, so that's why people should simply label their recordings properly. But at the moment, most don't do that. Another part of the problem is that everyone gives their bootlegs their own name. That confuses the issue even more. Every recording should have a date, venue, source, lineage, and title (only if it's a silver release), at least.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But, occasionally I must have a restriction. If I wouldn't do that, then my chances of getting rare recordings would be virtually zero. If I was offered the Liverpool 77 soundboard tomorrow, and I had previously chosen to share my only rarities here, what would I offer this person in exchange?[/QUOTE]
I understand your point but that's the main problem; it's a neverending story. I have grown up a lot in the past years and my attitude has changed. Nowadays I almost go mad when I see restrictions being placed on various recordings. For example I got another Barcelona 1979 recently (the other night than the common bootleg). I would definitely mark this as a "very rare recording", I don't think any of the "main" Queen collectors have it! But it's free for any trade. I recorded 8 Q+PR last year gigs, all of them were available for a trade with anybody for anything (and I did trade all of them, mostly for other Q+PR recordings).
It's simply a neverending story. Maybe 20-30% of the Q+PR recordings bear a "do not trade" restriction. That's just stupid. Yes, it's not a fucking communism, people must be rewarded for recording gigs or for finding a rare recording. But it can't go into extremes. If a collector records a gig and trades it 5 times, it should be enough for him. If he keeps it for 10 years without a single trade, then he's mentally ill.
I understand your point but that's the main problem; it's a neverending story. I have grown up a lot in the past years and my attitude has changed. Nowadays I almost go mad when I see restrictions being placed on various recordings. For example I got another Barcelona 1979 recently (the other night than the common bootleg). I would definitely mark this as a "very rare recording", I don't think any of the "main" Queen collectors have it! But it's free for any trade. I recorded 8 Q+PR last year gigs, all of them were available for a trade with anybody for anything (and I did trade all of them, mostly for other Q+PR recordings).
It's simply a neverending story. Maybe 20-30% of the Q+PR recordings bear a "do not trade" restriction. That's just stupid. Yes, it's not a fucking communism, people must be rewarded for recording gigs or for finding a rare recording. But it can't go into extremes. If a collector records a gig and trades it 5 times, it should be enough for him. If he keeps it for 10 years without a single trade, then he's mentally ill.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But, occasionally I must have a restriction. If I wouldn't do that, then my chances of getting rare recordings would be virtually zero. If I was offered the Liverpool 77 soundboard tomorrow, and I had previously chosen to share my only rarities here, what would I offer this person in exchange?[/QUOTE]
I understand your point but that's the main problem; it's a neverending story. I have grown up a lot in the past years and my attitude has changed. Nowadays I almost go mad when I see restrictions being placed on various recordings. For example I got another Barcelona 1979 recently (the other night than the common bootleg). I would definitely mark this as a "very rare recording", I don't think any of the "main" Queen collectors have it! But it's free for any trade. I recorded 8 Q+PR last year gigs, all of them were available for a trade with anybody for anything (and I did trade all of them, mostly for other Q+PR recordings).
It's simply a neverending story. Maybe 20-30% of the Q+PR recordings bear a "do not trade" restriction. That's just stupid. Yes, it's not a fucking communism, people must be rewarded for recording gigs or for finding a rare recording. But it can't go into extremes. If a collector records a gig and trades it 5 times, it should be enough for him. If he keeps it for 10 years without a single trade, then he's mentally ill.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I hear ya... totally. I was in contact with the Syracuse 77 bootlegger, and she still refuses to share the recording after all these years. To her, it's the "special memory of the show", and she feels sharing the recording will somehow diminish that memory. It's such a shame that the only complete US ADATR recording goes to waste.
Glad we've come to an agreement on this.
Do you want to trade your Barcelona 2-19-79 recording, by the way? :) I definitely could use this for my LK analysis.
I understand your point but that's the main problem; it's a neverending story. I have grown up a lot in the past years and my attitude has changed. Nowadays I almost go mad when I see restrictions being placed on various recordings. For example I got another Barcelona 1979 recently (the other night than the common bootleg). I would definitely mark this as a "very rare recording", I don't think any of the "main" Queen collectors have it! But it's free for any trade. I recorded 8 Q+PR last year gigs, all of them were available for a trade with anybody for anything (and I did trade all of them, mostly for other Q+PR recordings).
It's simply a neverending story. Maybe 20-30% of the Q+PR recordings bear a "do not trade" restriction. That's just stupid. Yes, it's not a fucking communism, people must be rewarded for recording gigs or for finding a rare recording. But it can't go into extremes. If a collector records a gig and trades it 5 times, it should be enough for him. If he keeps it for 10 years without a single trade, then he's mentally ill.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I hear ya... totally. I was in contact with the Syracuse 77 bootlegger, and she still refuses to share the recording after all these years. To her, it's the "special memory of the show", and she feels sharing the recording will somehow diminish that memory. It's such a shame that the only complete US ADATR recording goes to waste.
Glad we've come to an agreement on this.
Do you want to trade your Barcelona 2-19-79 recording, by the way? :) I definitely could use this for my LK analysis.
And what about those stupid gifts of Smitty? (Sorry, it's not personal)
It's a pain in the neck for bootleggers and collectors. It's confusing, really.
Making compilations of bootlegs is NOT a good idea. It gives you a wrong image of certain shows.
Sooner or later people think that Another One Bites The Dust was played in Earls Court 1977.
Offcourse, this is an extreme example of it, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
It's a pain in the neck for bootleggers and collectors. It's confusing, really.
Making compilations of bootlegs is NOT a good idea. It gives you a wrong image of certain shows.
Sooner or later people think that Another One Bites The Dust was played in Earls Court 1977.
Offcourse, this is an extreme example of it, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
I agree with both Bob and Rick in this. Many people don't "take care" of Queen bootlegs the right way. They are sharing fake concerts without even looking it up. I have no problems with the share of mp3 as long as they keep them for personal use only, but I think it's so annoying when they are polluting the trading market and in the hub (1/3 flac recordings in the hub are lossy). I've stopped sharing lossy concerts on QZ just because they aren't being used for personal use. Another thing, it's not so strange that I (I speak for myself) are very protective of my "rare" bootlegs (except when it comes to friends). Most of my "rare" recordings tends to be shared within a month after I got them, I can name examples:
Houston 1977 (audio)
Houston 1977 (video)
Stockholm 2005 (audio)
Liverpool 1973 (audio)
Uniondale 1977 (video)
Buffalo 1978 (video)
Golder's Green 1973 (complete audio, well I shared the lossy recording, but the lossless showed up in the hub a week after)
I can name some more, but I'm not arsed.
Houston 1977 (audio)
Houston 1977 (video)
Stockholm 2005 (audio)
Liverpool 1973 (audio)
Uniondale 1977 (video)
Buffalo 1978 (video)
Golder's Green 1973 (complete audio, well I shared the lossy recording, but the lossless showed up in the hub a week after)
I can name some more, but I'm not arsed.
Houston 1977 (audio)
Houston 1977 (video)
Stockholm 2005 (audio)
Liverpool 1973 (audio)
Uniondale 1977 (video)
Buffalo 1978 (video)
Golder's Green 1973 (complete audio, well I shared the lossy recording, but the lossless showed up in the hub a week after)
These were not really "your" recordings - many other collectors had them. But it's true that some people in the past broke their promises and shared certain recordings on QZ only to annoy other collectors. That's too bad for you and for Bob, who apparently has trouble to find new recordings for that reason.
Houston 1977 (video)
Stockholm 2005 (audio)
Liverpool 1973 (audio)
Uniondale 1977 (video)
Buffalo 1978 (video)
Golder's Green 1973 (complete audio, well I shared the lossy recording, but the lossless showed up in the hub a week after)
These were not really "your" recordings - many other collectors had them. But it's true that some people in the past broke their promises and shared certain recordings on QZ only to annoy other collectors. That's too bad for you and for Bob, who apparently has trouble to find new recordings for that reason.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That's too bad for you and for Bob, who apparently has trouble to find new recordings for that reason. [/QUOTE]
Are you implying that you don't have trouble finding recordings? If so, then what do you have that you could let us know about?
Are you implying that you don't have trouble finding recordings? If so, then what do you have that you could let us know about?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That's too bad for you and for Bob, who apparently has trouble to find new recordings for that reason. [/QUOTE]
Are you implying that you don't have trouble finding recordings? If so, then what do you have that you could let us know about?
[/QUOTE]
I edited my message, because I was too harsh.
Are you implying that you don't have trouble finding recordings? If so, then what do you have that you could let us know about?
[/QUOTE]
I edited my message, because I was too harsh.
I beg your pardon, Rick? Isn't that what Bob said in his previous post:
"But as I've said above, QZ seems to be the primary reason why new recordings are kept under wraps these days. Have you seen anything great emerge lately? The owners of the rare recordings are thinking twice now. Tell me, other than the complete Dallas 78 (which was shared by the bootlegger, not a collector), name me one truly interesting Queen recording that has been shared online lately at a place other than Queenzone"
What is sick about my post, please?
"But as I've said above, QZ seems to be the primary reason why new recordings are kept under wraps these days. Have you seen anything great emerge lately? The owners of the rare recordings are thinking twice now. Tell me, other than the complete Dallas 78 (which was shared by the bootlegger, not a collector), name me one truly interesting Queen recording that has been shared online lately at a place other than Queenzone"
What is sick about my post, please?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I beg your pardon, Rick? Isn't that what Bob said in his previous post:
"But as I've said above, QZ seems to be the primary reason why new recordings are kept under wraps these days. Have you seen anything great emerge lately? The owners of the rare recordings are thinking twice now. Tell me, other than the complete Dallas 78 (which was shared by the bootlegger, not a collector), name me one truly interesting Queen recording that has been shared online lately at a place other than Queenzone"
What is sick about my post, please?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry YV, it's not personal. I edited my message.
But you said it in a way of: "You can't get any rare recordings anymore, but I can."
Sorry, no hard feelings or whatsoever :-).
"But as I've said above, QZ seems to be the primary reason why new recordings are kept under wraps these days. Have you seen anything great emerge lately? The owners of the rare recordings are thinking twice now. Tell me, other than the complete Dallas 78 (which was shared by the bootlegger, not a collector), name me one truly interesting Queen recording that has been shared online lately at a place other than Queenzone"
What is sick about my post, please?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry YV, it's not personal. I edited my message.
But you said it in a way of: "You can't get any rare recordings anymore, but I can."
Sorry, no hard feelings or whatsoever :-).
That's okay Rick but I did not say that at all. Bob said I am "implying" something like that but I wasn't implying anything. Usually, I say what I mean :)
Main reason some people to not share or widely trade their own recordings is simply because that is the ONLY way to gain access to some other recordings of the same kind which would otherwise remain unseen forever!