[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
Finally, what do you realistically think happened to those stolen Queen tapes? My guess is that they are sitting in someone’s attic as you read this. (NO: certainly not mine). So while every fibre of your being tells you that those ‘Rhapsody’ out-takes do not exist, please do not be so naïve to believe that you are always correct.
[/QUOTE]
It´s a shame that whoever got the "NOTW" tapes didn´t said a word, because in this case this is something that doesn´t belong to collectors. Master tapes belong to the band, because it´s their work (acetates and films, are a diferent story!!), and because of that they weren´t able to release the best Mix possible for their Best-of DVD´s.
And i think this is only a question of having good sense, and not pactuate with bad actions (stealing the tapes).
But what you said is indeed true and it has happened a lot with the Beatles, and i believe it will happened again. How did this guys have recorded so many songs over such a small period of time?
Take care
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, I guess a blind-purchase could actually get suicidal if you did pay way too much for nothing! ;-)
Oh, sh*t, this brings bad memories.
Oh, sh*t, this brings bad memories.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki Amieva wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, I guess a blind-purchase could actually get suicidal if you did pay way too much for nothing! ;-)
Oh, sh*t, this brings bad memories. [/QUOTE]
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1-Broadcast-Video-Tapes-Reel-to-Reel-34-Minute_W0QQitemZ7597920099QQihZ017QQcategoryZ21163QQssP
thats what i call a blind purchase ;)
Oh, sh*t, this brings bad memories. [/QUOTE]
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1-Broadcast-Video-Tapes-Reel-to-Reel-34-Minute_W0QQitemZ7597920099QQihZ017QQcategoryZ21163QQssP
thats what i call a blind purchase ;)
Shouldn't this thread go under Requests instead of Serious Discussion?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bobby_brown wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote:
Finally, what do you realistically think happened to those stolen Queen tapes? My guess is that they are sitting in someone’s attic as you read this. (NO: certainly not mine). So while every fibre of your being tells you that those ‘Rhapsody’ out-takes do not exist, please do not be so naïve to believe that you are always correct.
[/QUOTE]
It´s a shame that whoever got the "NOTW" tapes didn´t said a word, because in this case this is something that doesn´t belong to collectors. Master tapes belong to the band, because it´s their work (acetates and films, are a diferent story!!), and because of that they weren´t able to release the best Mix possible for their Best-of DVD´s.
And i think this is only a question of having good sense, and not pactuate with bad actions (stealing the tapes).
But what you said is indeed true and it has happened a lot with the Beatles, and i believe it will happened again. How did this guys have recorded so many songs over such a small period of time?
Take care[/QUOTE]
Here, here!
Finally, what do you realistically think happened to those stolen Queen tapes? My guess is that they are sitting in someone’s attic as you read this. (NO: certainly not mine). So while every fibre of your being tells you that those ‘Rhapsody’ out-takes do not exist, please do not be so naïve to believe that you are always correct.
[/QUOTE]
It´s a shame that whoever got the "NOTW" tapes didn´t said a word, because in this case this is something that doesn´t belong to collectors. Master tapes belong to the band, because it´s their work (acetates and films, are a diferent story!!), and because of that they weren´t able to release the best Mix possible for their Best-of DVD´s.
And i think this is only a question of having good sense, and not pactuate with bad actions (stealing the tapes).
But what you said is indeed true and it has happened a lot with the Beatles, and i believe it will happened again. How did this guys have recorded so many songs over such a small period of time?
Take care[/QUOTE]
Here, here!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]luthorn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Shouldn't this thread go under Requests instead of Serious Discussion?[/QUOTE]
It's more like a request for a serious discussion :-)
It's more like a request for a serious discussion :-)
Well I said I'd give Mr Brooks a second chance and so far he's wasted it, merely confirming on this thread what I first thought.
John S.
You're absolutely right and it happens with bands all the time - just look through the pages of Record Collector and, every month, there's a story about a newly discovered gem from the dark and distant past.
I've been assisting on The Who's new film directed by Murray Lerner and, regardless of various statements from the producers of the official re-issues, master tapes (bot audio and visual) DO exist in private collections, both already known to the band and it's management and that are COMPLETELY private. Why "official" sources feel the need to so *OPENLY* deny the existance of material that they really have no idea about is beyond me. I believe that, in most cases, there's a bit of embarassment behind it all in that the fan base would be so shocked that an official archive has been so poorly maintained.
The fact is that no one realised at the time that there would be any interest in historical recordings and that the re-issue market would be the single largest growing market in music.
Take the earliest known Who recordings - recorded as The High Numbers in 1964 as a test session for EMI, which subsequently saw EMI turn them down. The stuff is magic. Concert film from the period 1968-1973 has emerged that was previously though not to exist, including, AMAZINGLY, the historic Live At Leeds show from 14.02.1970. It's openly known that The WHo's archive was always poorly maintained and, anything that does turn up is something of a surprise to the band too.
However, with Queen, the boast has always been that the arcive is excellently maintained and probably as complete as it can be. Hell, they have even employed their own archivist! But, in reality, the archive could contain absolutely anything and, from what has emerged so far in terms of credible evidence, it doesn't contain very much at all that is of historical interest.
Certainly, the archivist must be under one hell of a non-disclosure agreement judging by his lack of apparent willingness to inform....
You're absolutely right and it happens with bands all the time - just look through the pages of Record Collector and, every month, there's a story about a newly discovered gem from the dark and distant past.
I've been assisting on The Who's new film directed by Murray Lerner and, regardless of various statements from the producers of the official re-issues, master tapes (bot audio and visual) DO exist in private collections, both already known to the band and it's management and that are COMPLETELY private. Why "official" sources feel the need to so *OPENLY* deny the existance of material that they really have no idea about is beyond me. I believe that, in most cases, there's a bit of embarassment behind it all in that the fan base would be so shocked that an official archive has been so poorly maintained.
The fact is that no one realised at the time that there would be any interest in historical recordings and that the re-issue market would be the single largest growing market in music.
Take the earliest known Who recordings - recorded as The High Numbers in 1964 as a test session for EMI, which subsequently saw EMI turn them down. The stuff is magic. Concert film from the period 1968-1973 has emerged that was previously though not to exist, including, AMAZINGLY, the historic Live At Leeds show from 14.02.1970. It's openly known that The WHo's archive was always poorly maintained and, anything that does turn up is something of a surprise to the band too.
However, with Queen, the boast has always been that the arcive is excellently maintained and probably as complete as it can be. Hell, they have even employed their own archivist! But, in reality, the archive could contain absolutely anything and, from what has emerged so far in terms of credible evidence, it doesn't contain very much at all that is of historical interest.
Certainly, the archivist must be under one hell of a non-disclosure agreement judging by his lack of apparent willingness to inform....
It stands to reason that when Bo Rap was filmed it was edited to make the final video, the original tape may never have been seen by the members of Queen, so it is not a huge leap to assume that if Greg asked Brian about it he would say, no never heard of it.
Whether the scraps from the cutting room floor were ever kept is quiet possible but unknown to anyone except possibly the guys that edited the film.
It's not a giant leap to make that at some point someone put them back together and sold it, I doubt it has much of interest probably just people walking into place and casual chat before a take, nothing much more exciting than that. But to catagorically deign it exists is foolish, how can it be proved not to?
Bruce Gowers is the man who probably knows, he directed it
Whether the scraps from the cutting room floor were ever kept is quiet possible but unknown to anyone except possibly the guys that edited the film.
It's not a giant leap to make that at some point someone put them back together and sold it, I doubt it has much of interest probably just people walking into place and casual chat before a take, nothing much more exciting than that. But to catagorically deign it exists is foolish, how can it be proved not to?
Bruce Gowers is the man who probably knows, he directed it
'We must all see to believe'
...hmmm... reminds me of a game that won't run on my computer anymore...
...hmmm... reminds me of a game that won't run on my computer anymore...
I know, I know! Queen The Eye! What I won?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wilki Amieva wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You certainly have made a very valid point with your last post, Greg. On the other hand, you have not always behaved in 'orthodox' ways (to say the least) within this forum. I guess we all just will have to take QUEENZone mostly as a "live and let die" scene: cherishing the good moments - by-passing the rest. Don't you agree?[/QUOTE]
I totally agree, Wilki.
The only additional comment I have is that Richard, being the owner, is free to decide if, when and what to do.
He might well believe that most at Queenzone prefer to have it unmoderated, which is not unlikelly.
And thanks Greg, for the mainly positive approach in this thread. I've learned a lot in it, thanks to the mostly positive attitude of all involved.
As for other parallel discussions going on, since they did not concern me, I just didn't read. These things do get in the way, but I can certainly leave with them.
Cheers,
Ogre-
I totally agree, Wilki.
The only additional comment I have is that Richard, being the owner, is free to decide if, when and what to do.
He might well believe that most at Queenzone prefer to have it unmoderated, which is not unlikelly.
And thanks Greg, for the mainly positive approach in this thread. I've learned a lot in it, thanks to the mostly positive attitude of all involved.
As for other parallel discussions going on, since they did not concern me, I just didn't read. These things do get in the way, but I can certainly leave with them.
Cheers,
Ogre-
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I know, I know! Queen The Eye! What I won?[/QUOTE]
A kiss...
From ME! :-)
A kiss...
From ME! :-)