Lester Burnham wrote:
Boy am I glad that I can now say that I put something up instead of shutting up, because that makes everything I say far more authentic. People will HAVE to believe everything I say now, and if they don't then, no matter how knowledgable they may be, their opinion is worthless because they haven't had a book published!
GB (QUEEN ARCHIVIST) REPLIES. Lester you have missed the point. You know very well what I mean, but you choose to take the piss in order to remain popular here, rather than confirming that certain points I have made are indeed valid and relevant to you in your writing of a book..
I do not say that a person has to have written a book, or some such thing, to be able to comment constructively on the work of another writer. No. I simply say that when people come into QZ just to slag off my book, for example, but they do so without constructive comment, with obvious hatred of me as the main reason and inspiration, rather than a valid creative objective, and with a blatant sour grapes "I loathe Greg' motivation, then perhaps these people should try doing something themselves.
Then they would know and better understand the inns and outs of the problems authors exprience.
I noticed for example that YourValentine - a respected QZ-er, I know that, but even so you must be open to the possibility that she too dislikes me and therefore that clearly governs and dominates her 'review' of anything I do - YV reviewd my Freddie book with such blatant dislike of me dictating every word, that it was impossible to see behond anything else.
That should not be the case. She should have offered a detached review regardless of disliking me.
She concluded with 'This book is crap'. Now, would she have said that about ANY ONE ELSE at all on QZ? No. Of course not.
If she were 'reviewing' another book, she would be constructive. She would cite the bad AND the good within it, as any impartial person would. You can all see that as clear as day, but why can't any of you openly challenge her on this? So, she's a great friend of yours!!! So what. You can still be in opposition with her from time to time. Your friendship will endure even if you dare to go public with an opposing pinion in preference to a fair and honest approach.
That she was so totally biassed only show that the review cannot be remotely fair or balanced.
I think if she or anybody else dislikes me, that in itself is fine....but you cannot let that impact your supposed constructive review of my work. You cannot let personal issues cloud your professional judgement.
Lester... I think anyone can say anything about my work, my books, or anyone else's. But surely that comment should have nothing to do with personal feelings.
NO ONE said to YV... "YV, your comments are clearly not fair or balanced. They are not constructive, they are just indicitive of your dislike of Greg, and so we still don't really genuinely know if the book is worth investigation or not. You failed inyour honest assessment of a Freddie Mercury book. You reviewed the author, not the work."
As I have said here on QZ before. People like YV are very quick to criticise. It is the easiest thing in the world to do, and very very English, to criticise the work of everyone else but never put out anything of your own to be 'reviewed' in the same way.
Such people have no idea of what projects like the Freddie book entail. They see it only in a tainted short-sighted way.
I have no problem at all with YourValentine or anyone else loathing that FM book, but I do expect a fair overview to be offerred to you people, rather than something driven by spite.
That is reasonable, isn't it? Come on... be fair for a change. Stand up and say, "Yes, this is a reasonable point that the tosser Greg, whom we hate, is making."
You know...journalists and other such people who continually criticise and bring down other people's work, are, u
Thread
Posts in chronological order
well I've got you book "Queen Live" Greg, signed by you (n°55 out of 200) and I must say it was a very good read
it shed a whole new light on my favorite band. I just love to "cruise" through your book in no particular order and read bits and pieces here and there, little annecdotes which are always good for a laugh
I did notice though that some of the photo's weren't in chronological order, but hey the book doesn't claim to do that so that's not really something to be critical about, lol.
it shed a whole new light on my favorite band. I just love to "cruise" through your book in no particular order and read bits and pieces here and there, little annecdotes which are always good for a laugh
I did notice though that some of the photo's weren't in chronological order, but hey the book doesn't claim to do that so that's not really something to be critical about, lol.
Thanks Jony.
The book was conceived and written for people just like you.
I hope you continue to enjoy it as the reference interest document it was intended to be. And I hope you don't become polluted by the infectious negativity so prevalent on QZ.
Just take the book for what it is.
Regards
The book was conceived and written for people just like you.
I hope you continue to enjoy it as the reference interest document it was intended to be. And I hope you don't become polluted by the infectious negativity so prevalent on QZ.
Just take the book for what it is.
Regards
Apparently, you missed the point deliberately; in that thread, I was posting about Young Strat Man's comment for anyone who isn't a journalist or in the music industry to shut the hell up. But thanks for devoting a whole topic to me, Greg.
Hi Greg
I Had the paperback version for my birthday at the turn of the year and it was signed too and i find the book full of interesting info, andecotes and good pictures much i haven't seen before.
As i play a lot of concerts it's great to have the visual info on hand as i'm listening and shows the meticulous time and effort it took for you and i for one congratulate you on a marvellous 'ultimate queen live bible'.
Cheers greg keep up the good work.
I Had the paperback version for my birthday at the turn of the year and it was signed too and i find the book full of interesting info, andecotes and good pictures much i haven't seen before.
As i play a lot of concerts it's great to have the visual info on hand as i'm listening and shows the meticulous time and effort it took for you and i for one congratulate you on a marvellous 'ultimate queen live bible'.
Cheers greg keep up the good work.
While I don't own a copy of the book myself, I have looked through it numerous times at various places (bookstores, on the shelves of many of my friends etc.) and I must say that it's VERY well done. As you say Greg, there might very well be errors, but it doesn't take away from the dedication to the product and REALLY how good it is!!
Must pick up a copy for myself sometime. Long overdue!
So - Bravo Greg!!!
A.
Must pick up a copy for myself sometime. Long overdue!
So - Bravo Greg!!!
A.
Greg
Can you drop me an email?
Regards
Latemix
Can you drop me an email?
Regards
Latemix
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The book was conceived and written for people just like you.[/QUOTE]
Exactly... for the people who aren't big enough fans to notice the mistakes on almost every page. Like I've said before, you can cater to the average fan all you want Greg, but the true hardcore and knowledgeable Queen fans can see through you. You obviously know this, and that's why you get so upset with anyone who is critical of your work, even though we are in the minority. You can get the majority to stick up for you and have them believe that it's okay to release a book full of errors, because they don't notice the errors themselves.
What if you were a scientist and you released a book on chemistry, and you got the atomic masses of 1/4 of the elements wrong? Would moderate scientific enthusiasts say, "That's okay Dr. Brooks, we know you meant well", and then proceed to attack any true scientists who point out the flaws? Or would the worldwide scientific community go to all lengths to ban the book from publication because it is spreading incorrect information about their field of study?
Why shouldn't this apply to your book?
Exactly... for the people who aren't big enough fans to notice the mistakes on almost every page. Like I've said before, you can cater to the average fan all you want Greg, but the true hardcore and knowledgeable Queen fans can see through you. You obviously know this, and that's why you get so upset with anyone who is critical of your work, even though we are in the minority. You can get the majority to stick up for you and have them believe that it's okay to release a book full of errors, because they don't notice the errors themselves.
What if you were a scientist and you released a book on chemistry, and you got the atomic masses of 1/4 of the elements wrong? Would moderate scientific enthusiasts say, "That's okay Dr. Brooks, we know you meant well", and then proceed to attack any true scientists who point out the flaws? Or would the worldwide scientific community go to all lengths to ban the book from publication because it is spreading incorrect information about their field of study?
Why shouldn't this apply to your book?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queen Archivist wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The book was conceived and written for people just like you.[/QUOTE]
Exactly... for the people who aren't big enough fans to notice the mistakes on almost every page. Like I've said before, you can cater to the average fan all you want Greg, but the true hardcore and knowledgeable Queen fans can see through you. You obviously know this, and that's why you get so upset with anyone who is critical of your work, even though we are in the minority. You can get the majority to stick up for you and have them believe that it's okay to release a book full of errors, because they don't notice the errors themselves.
What if you were a scientist and you released a book on chemistry, and got the atomic masses of 1/4 of the elements wrong? Would moderate scientific enthusiasts say, "That's okay Dr. Brooks, we know you meant well", and then attack the true scientists for pointing out the flaws? Or would the worldwide scientific community go to all lengths to ban the book from publication because it is spreading incorrect facts about their field of study?
Why shouldn't this apply to your book?
[/QUOTE]
unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.
I infer from your post that I am not a real hardcore Queen fan.
what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?
piss off, idiot
Exactly... for the people who aren't big enough fans to notice the mistakes on almost every page. Like I've said before, you can cater to the average fan all you want Greg, but the true hardcore and knowledgeable Queen fans can see through you. You obviously know this, and that's why you get so upset with anyone who is critical of your work, even though we are in the minority. You can get the majority to stick up for you and have them believe that it's okay to release a book full of errors, because they don't notice the errors themselves.
What if you were a scientist and you released a book on chemistry, and got the atomic masses of 1/4 of the elements wrong? Would moderate scientific enthusiasts say, "That's okay Dr. Brooks, we know you meant well", and then attack the true scientists for pointing out the flaws? Or would the worldwide scientific community go to all lengths to ban the book from publication because it is spreading incorrect facts about their field of study?
Why shouldn't this apply to your book?
[/QUOTE]
unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.
I infer from your post that I am not a real hardcore Queen fan.
what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?
piss off, idiot
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.[/QUOTE]
If science isn't up for debate, then why are scientists constantly improving their theories, and coming out with new experiments to prove new things?
[QUOTE]what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?[/QUOTE]
You may be a hardcore fan of their music, but you're not too knowledgeable of their history if you can read a book on the band without seeing at least some of its mistakes. In this particular case, you can't know too much about their concerts if you can't see that half of his setlists from the 70s are wrong. Greg made mistakes in his book on things that haven't been debated for years, as they had been proven otherwise long ago. What I'd like to know is, why do people like you automatically stick up for him before you even know what the errors are?
No need for the name calling. All I need to say towards you personally is that you are a prime example of the kind of fan Greg is writing for. You are indeed a big fan, but you just haven't read up on their concert history and listened to the bootlegs enough to see how error-ridden his work is. To someone like myself who is highly knowledgeable of Queen's concert history, Greg's book is a frustrating read because I know it could be so much more than it is. I must be in the overwhelming minority if even a big fan such as yourself doesn't see the flaws.
If science isn't up for debate, then why are scientists constantly improving their theories, and coming out with new experiments to prove new things?
[QUOTE]what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?[/QUOTE]
You may be a hardcore fan of their music, but you're not too knowledgeable of their history if you can read a book on the band without seeing at least some of its mistakes. In this particular case, you can't know too much about their concerts if you can't see that half of his setlists from the 70s are wrong. Greg made mistakes in his book on things that haven't been debated for years, as they had been proven otherwise long ago. What I'd like to know is, why do people like you automatically stick up for him before you even know what the errors are?
No need for the name calling. All I need to say towards you personally is that you are a prime example of the kind of fan Greg is writing for. You are indeed a big fan, but you just haven't read up on their concert history and listened to the bootlegs enough to see how error-ridden his work is. To someone like myself who is highly knowledgeable of Queen's concert history, Greg's book is a frustrating read because I know it could be so much more than it is. I must be in the overwhelming minority if even a big fan such as yourself doesn't see the flaws.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [
[/QUOTE]
unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.
[/QUOTE]
WHAT??
LOLLOLLOLLOL!
You mean it is up for debate if a band played a specific song on a specific date???
You can DEBATE about a song being played??
You can DEBATE about on which date a show was being held???
You can DEBATE about wether Freddie was male or female????
And you dare tell total strangers to piss off?
HAHAHAHA! Who's the idiot?!
Welcome to Queenzone, whoever you are!
You're a moron, so I'm sure you'll fit in!
[/QUOTE]
unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.
[/QUOTE]
WHAT??
LOLLOLLOLLOL!
You mean it is up for debate if a band played a specific song on a specific date???
You can DEBATE about a song being played??
You can DEBATE about on which date a show was being held???
You can DEBATE about wether Freddie was male or female????
And you dare tell total strangers to piss off?
HAHAHAHA! Who's the idiot?!
Welcome to Queenzone, whoever you are!
You're a moron, so I'm sure you'll fit in!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.[/QUOTE]
If science isn't up for debate, then why are scientists constantly improving their theories, and coming out with new experiments to prove new things?
[QUOTE]what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?[/QUOTE]
You may be a hardcore fan of their music, but you're not too knowledgeable of their history if you can read a book on the band without seeing at least some of its mistakes. In this particular case, you can't know too much about their concerts if you can't see that half of his setlists from the 70s are wrong. Greg made mistakes in his book on things that haven't been debated for years, as they had been proven otherwise long ago. What I'd like to know is, why do people like you automatically stick up for him before you even know what the errors are?
No need for the name calling. All I need to say towards you personally is that you are a prime example of the kind of fan Greg is writing for. You are indeed a big fan, but you just haven't read up on their concert history and listened to the bootlegs enough to see how error-ridden his work is. To someone like myself who is highly knowledgeable of Queen's concert history, Greg's book is a frustrating read because I know it could be so much more than it is. I must be in the overwhelming minority if even a big fan such as yourself doesn't see the flaws.
[/QUOTE]
if you know so much about Queen's concert history as you claim, so much in fact that you can pick out the errors by sight, then why do you read the book in the first place?
where did I say that I didn't notice the errors? nowhere. I don't care about those minor flaws. I don't give a flying fuck about what the fifth track was that they played at their first hammersmith concert. I want to know the anecdotes, I want to read something about the general atmosphere of those years. I basically want a good read, and close the book with a smile on my face having just read about something funny that happened here or there
yeah, I'm a happy fan that's thankfull for what he has. I don't ask for more anyway. the things they present us more than satisfy me. I'm not such a bitter, jealous brat like most of you here.
If science isn't up for debate, then why are scientists constantly improving their theories, and coming out with new experiments to prove new things?
[QUOTE]what a high horsed spoiled brat you are. I have every damn Queen album, every Roger, the cross, brian and freddie album. I went to the Q+PR concert being one of the few who wore a Queen t-shirt and now you are going to tell me I am not a real hardcore Queen fan?[/QUOTE]
You may be a hardcore fan of their music, but you're not too knowledgeable of their history if you can read a book on the band without seeing at least some of its mistakes. In this particular case, you can't know too much about their concerts if you can't see that half of his setlists from the 70s are wrong. Greg made mistakes in his book on things that haven't been debated for years, as they had been proven otherwise long ago. What I'd like to know is, why do people like you automatically stick up for him before you even know what the errors are?
No need for the name calling. All I need to say towards you personally is that you are a prime example of the kind of fan Greg is writing for. You are indeed a big fan, but you just haven't read up on their concert history and listened to the bootlegs enough to see how error-ridden his work is. To someone like myself who is highly knowledgeable of Queen's concert history, Greg's book is a frustrating read because I know it could be so much more than it is. I must be in the overwhelming minority if even a big fan such as yourself doesn't see the flaws.
[/QUOTE]
if you know so much about Queen's concert history as you claim, so much in fact that you can pick out the errors by sight, then why do you read the book in the first place?
where did I say that I didn't notice the errors? nowhere. I don't care about those minor flaws. I don't give a flying fuck about what the fifth track was that they played at their first hammersmith concert. I want to know the anecdotes, I want to read something about the general atmosphere of those years. I basically want a good read, and close the book with a smile on my face having just read about something funny that happened here or there
yeah, I'm a happy fan that's thankfull for what he has. I don't ask for more anyway. the things they present us more than satisfy me. I'm not such a bitter, jealous brat like most of you here.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jeroen wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME].Jony. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [
[/QUOTE]
unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.
[/QUOTE]
WHAT??
LOLLOLLOLLOL!
You mean it is up for debate if a band played a specific song on a specific date???
You can DEBATE about a song being played??
You can DEBATE about on which date a show was being held???
You can DEBATE about wether Freddie was male or female????
And you dare tell total strangers to piss off?
HAHAHAHA! Who's the idiot?!
Welcome to Queenzone, whoever you are!
You're a moron, so I'm sure you'll fit in![/QUOTE]
well, I don't think even brian knows all the setlists by head, of all concerts he ever played. if he does, then the fella has the brian of five einsteins put together. no one knows exactly, and you certainly not. if greg made a mistake, it's because his source was wrong. he can only write what various sources tell. some sources contradict themselves, so yeah sometimes it is debatable what songs they played.
[/QUOTE]
unlike maths and rocket science, the history of a band isn't an exact science. things are always up for debate.
[/QUOTE]
WHAT??
LOLLOLLOLLOL!
You mean it is up for debate if a band played a specific song on a specific date???
You can DEBATE about a song being played??
You can DEBATE about on which date a show was being held???
You can DEBATE about wether Freddie was male or female????
And you dare tell total strangers to piss off?
HAHAHAHA! Who's the idiot?!
Welcome to Queenzone, whoever you are!
You're a moron, so I'm sure you'll fit in![/QUOTE]
well, I don't think even brian knows all the setlists by head, of all concerts he ever played. if he does, then the fella has the brian of five einsteins put together. no one knows exactly, and you certainly not. if greg made a mistake, it's because his source was wrong. he can only write what various sources tell. some sources contradict themselves, so yeah sometimes it is debatable what songs they played.
Yeah - that's right; I pressed Serry's button.
Fuck this; silly goose.
Fuck this; silly goose.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jeroen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]if you know so much about Queen's concert history as you claim, so much in fact that you can pick out the errors by sight, then why do you read the book in the first place?
------>So you only read books to learn something you don't know yet? ********obviously you were looking for exact concert setlists for whatever strange reason. if you know all them, as you seem to be able to pick out all the errors, why do you still read the book?
You never read for fun? ***of course. most of the time. that's what I just said in my previous post. you on the contrary have a need for exact information about running orders of tracks played in long forgotten gigs. hardly a fun hobby (but that's just me)
You never read about stuff you already know in hope to find a little bit or maybe even more of what you did NOT yet know? *******if I already know it, there is nothing I can read that I don't know. make up your mind.
You don't buy books for collectiings-sake. ********for collecting sake? what the hell has that to do with anything? if you bought the book for collecting sake, then it doesn't matter what's written in the book.
Bullshit remark!
where did I say that I didn't notice the errors? nowhere. I don't care about those minor flaws. I don't give a flying fuck about what the fifth track was that they played at their first hammersmith concert.
----->If information is presented as a fact you SHOULD care about flaws.***well I don't. there are more important things in life than to worry about setlists. geez, get a life
Another bullshit remark.
I want to know the anecdotes, I want to read something about the general atmosphere of those years.
------>Then read another book! As it began for instance or whatever biography. QUEEN LIVE BY GREG BROOKS IS A CONCERTOGRAPHY AND NOT A BIOGRAPHY.*****another argument that's missing the point. who gives a fuck if the book is a concertography. it's a book about Queen. that's enough information for the "hardcore" Queen fan to buy the book. it's not like if the book was called a biography that true Queen fans would say "pah, I don't like biographys, I'll skip this one". it's not like I'm focussing on concertographies and steer clear around biographies. when I buy those nooks the primary reason is that it's a book about Queen. I don't expect to turn into a superman by reading these books, and nothing more should be expected from it than it being a "book about Queen". it will save you a lot of worries, my critical friend.
You guessed it: another bullshit remark.
yeah, I'm a happy fan that's thankfull for what he has. I don't ask for more anyway. the things they present us more than satisfy me. I'm not such a bitter, jealous brat like most of you here.
----->Neither am I - and I am not saying anything about Greg's book through my remarks here. I'm just writing this to point out that your talking bullshit.********just to point out that I'm talking bullshit? is that another one of your hobbies, apart from this obsessive need for exact setlists?
well, I don't think even brian knows all the setlists by head, of all concerts he ever played. if he does, then the fella has the brian of five einsteins put together. no one knows exactly, and you certainly not.
--->NO BODY knows everything by heart. Does one need to? NO! Books like this are not written 'by heart' they are written by knowledge and research. People have spent years and years INVESTIGATING what these shows were like. By listening to all possible recordings, reports, setlists EVERYTHING, combining them and researching (THAT's where the knowledge about setlists comes from not from memory silly goose - obviously you are new to the term 'bootleg'?*****obviously some of these reports were wrong. the reporters are to blame, not greg.
if greg made a mistake, it's because his source was wrong. he can only write what various sources tell. some s
------>So you only read books to learn something you don't know yet? ********obviously you were looking for exact concert setlists for whatever strange reason. if you know all them, as you seem to be able to pick out all the errors, why do you still read the book?
You never read for fun? ***of course. most of the time. that's what I just said in my previous post. you on the contrary have a need for exact information about running orders of tracks played in long forgotten gigs. hardly a fun hobby (but that's just me)
You never read about stuff you already know in hope to find a little bit or maybe even more of what you did NOT yet know? *******if I already know it, there is nothing I can read that I don't know. make up your mind.
You don't buy books for collectiings-sake. ********for collecting sake? what the hell has that to do with anything? if you bought the book for collecting sake, then it doesn't matter what's written in the book.
Bullshit remark!
where did I say that I didn't notice the errors? nowhere. I don't care about those minor flaws. I don't give a flying fuck about what the fifth track was that they played at their first hammersmith concert.
----->If information is presented as a fact you SHOULD care about flaws.***well I don't. there are more important things in life than to worry about setlists. geez, get a life
Another bullshit remark.
I want to know the anecdotes, I want to read something about the general atmosphere of those years.
------>Then read another book! As it began for instance or whatever biography. QUEEN LIVE BY GREG BROOKS IS A CONCERTOGRAPHY AND NOT A BIOGRAPHY.*****another argument that's missing the point. who gives a fuck if the book is a concertography. it's a book about Queen. that's enough information for the "hardcore" Queen fan to buy the book. it's not like if the book was called a biography that true Queen fans would say "pah, I don't like biographys, I'll skip this one". it's not like I'm focussing on concertographies and steer clear around biographies. when I buy those nooks the primary reason is that it's a book about Queen. I don't expect to turn into a superman by reading these books, and nothing more should be expected from it than it being a "book about Queen". it will save you a lot of worries, my critical friend.
You guessed it: another bullshit remark.
yeah, I'm a happy fan that's thankfull for what he has. I don't ask for more anyway. the things they present us more than satisfy me. I'm not such a bitter, jealous brat like most of you here.
----->Neither am I - and I am not saying anything about Greg's book through my remarks here. I'm just writing this to point out that your talking bullshit.********just to point out that I'm talking bullshit? is that another one of your hobbies, apart from this obsessive need for exact setlists?
well, I don't think even brian knows all the setlists by head, of all concerts he ever played. if he does, then the fella has the brian of five einsteins put together. no one knows exactly, and you certainly not.
--->NO BODY knows everything by heart. Does one need to? NO! Books like this are not written 'by heart' they are written by knowledge and research. People have spent years and years INVESTIGATING what these shows were like. By listening to all possible recordings, reports, setlists EVERYTHING, combining them and researching (THAT's where the knowledge about setlists comes from not from memory silly goose - obviously you are new to the term 'bootleg'?*****obviously some of these reports were wrong. the reporters are to blame, not greg.
if greg made a mistake, it's because his source was wrong. he can only write what various sources tell. some s