Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Has John S. Stuart moved into the Queen Archive room and nobody told me?

forum rss feed
Author

Queen Archivist user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 850 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jul 06, 22:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Greg Brooks here. I'm having my 6-weekly look at what you people are disappointed about this week... and I'm wondering how John (font of all knowledge and general Messiah to many Queenzoners) Stuart can say so categorically what Demos do and do not exist in the archive? He must have moved himself and his family down from Scotland into the Queen Archive Room, right? Bunkbeds next to the Queen II analog tapes. Toothbrush and sundries on the Innuendo shelves???? Surely.

He must have. He must have listened to ALL the tapes to be able to say what he's told you all, right?

John recently posted this piece of information about Queen II material...

He wrote (to someone evidently less clued up than him): 'You have no idea what you are talking about... It is true some demos do exist - but only as incomplete/variations of the tracks we already know about.'

You are not right in this, JSS. This is misleading at the very least. Again.

I've been working with the Queen II multitrack tapes since 1998. I labelled them, logged them, stored them, listened to them, heard them being played via transfer. Can John please tell me which tapes contain the demos which he knows to exist on them, because that would be very impressive. There are only five people in this world who know what does and does not exist.

John, are you CERTAIN then that there are NO recordings from the Queen II time which fans are NOT familiar with?

Is that right? There are only "incomplete/variations of the tracks we already know about." IS THAT SO? Are you sure John? Are you absolutely 100% certain of that?

No, you are not. In fact you are not even 1% certain. You are 100% guessing. That's all you can do.

If you're not certain of these things - and you cannot possibly be - what business do you have telling Queen fans so definitely???

Where on Earth do you get your ideas from John? Why is it you feel you can go public with this kind of misinformation and get people barking up trees which do not exist. There ARE NOT demos as you describe them, at all.

And you simply do not know if there are OTHER, unfamiliar songs. You don't know if Hangman exists in the archive, or if any pre-Queen songs recorded by Queen, or experimental recordings or rehearsals, or any cover versions. Any number of things may exist on the tapes which YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD or even seen.

I have picked you up on this before, John, because it annoyed me then too, but still you go off imparting great pearls of exciting wisdom that have no foundation. They are just little notions you have, which you think are feasible, and then put 'out there' as fact. It is unhelpful and inaccurate.

Unless you work in the archive and are intimate with the content of the Queen tapes, which YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT, you should not be telling people things as if you know it to be fact. There are NOT the demos you imagine, there are merely other remixes and remnants and fragments - as I have said many times previously. By 'Remixes', i do not mean the modern-day definition of that term... NOT dance/club remixes. I mean just a mix different to the familiar.

John, if you stick to what you know, instead of offering guestimates as fact, it will cause less confusion to those who take what you offer as gospel - poor fools! You are only muddying already dingy waters.

I don't come onto this site and start offering definitive data on the latest medical breakthru's, or upon Sony's latest DVD player, or Renault's plans for a secret milk-powered car, or speculate about other such things I am not privy to, but which other people will know all about FAR MORE THAN ME. I stick to what I know about, because I am there actually INSIDE the room with the tapes. I am not 200 miles away, like you are, GUESSING as to what exists. Me guessing about your work, or anyone else's, would be pointless and of no help to anyone - just like your inaccurate speculation (offered as fact) is unhelpful to Queen


GB
L-R-TIGER1994 user not visiting Queenzone.com
member of the Royal Family
L-R-TIGER1994
Deity: 3652 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jul 06, 22:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I can only say that there's gonna be a long discussion over here.


Heap big woman you made an asshole outta me....gimme your bums and ride!!!!!!
its_a_hard_life 26994 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 11046 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jul 06, 22:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

L-R-TIGER1994 wrote:

I can only say that there's gonna be a long discussion over here.


110% correct there....

Lester Burnham user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5870 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jul 06, 22:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen Archivist wrote:

Why are Queenzoners so willing to accept what JSS says, when they know he cannot possibly be even 1 percent sure?? This baffles me!


Because John's a respected collector, and is actually willing to share whatever information he has collected over the years. I'm sure if you could enlighten us, we'd be more than willing to listen to you.

Queen Archivist wrote:

If John stated (in his usual emphatic way) that there existed a version of Freddie singing 'Ernie The Fastest Milkman In The West' on Blackpool pier in 1962, a decade before Benny Hillwrote it, I think there are people on this site that would give that air-time too! God only knows why.


Kind of like how you said Queen played 'Mull Of Kintyre' live in May 1977, three months before it was written and six months before it was released as a single?

Sorry Greg, but unless you can offer something of interest instead of barging in here to stir shit up, then I'm afraid QZers are going to listen to JSS, who conducts himself far more respectably on this site. I'm not saying these things to start a fight, but I feel they're valid points. If you feel that you can add to a discussion here, or want to help settle the issue on what exists and what doesn't, then by all means, please do. If you can't, then what good is calling John out on his (apparent) misinformation?

PieterMC user not visiting Queenzone.com
PieterMC
Deity: 3931 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Jul 06, 23:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A wise man once said "Oh shit, all this crap again?"

its_a_hard_life 26994 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 11046 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 00:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

PieterMC wrote:

A wise man once said "Oh shit, all this crap again?"


*wide grin*

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 00:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

> Greg Brooks here. I'm having my 6-weekly look at what you people are disappointed about this week...

How pathetic is that!

> and I'm wondering how John (font of all knowledge and general Messiah to many Queenzoners)

I'm wondering how can you be so jealous if apparently you're in such privileged position. Well, there's again only one line: how pathetic is that!

> Toothbrush and sundries on the Innuendo shelves???? Surely.

And his favourite mac on your arse as well.

> He must have. He must have listened to ALL the tapes to be able to say what he's told you all, right?

No, but it's more than stating Fred sings the first verse of WWTLF or God knows how many other fallacies.

> You are not right in this, JSS. This is misleading at the very least. Again.

Pot calls the kettle black.

> I've been working with the Queen II multitrack tapes since 1998.

And yet you haven't got the brains of a cockroach. How do you do it?

> There are only five people in this world who know what does and does not exist.

And I really hope the other four are able to think.

> No, you are not.

No, he is not. But then again, you were absolutely sure that Brian didn't sing on WWTLF, and that's something you can notice without all that archive crap.

> That's all you can do.

And it's much more than we can say of you.

> If you're not certain of these things - and you cannot possibly be - what business do you have telling Queen fans so definitely???

Can you practice what you preach?

> Why is it you feel you can go public with this kind of misinformation and get people barking up trees which do not exist.

I'll answer this one once I stop laughing, which will take a while.

> still you go off imparting great pearls of exciting wisdom that have no foundation.

That's much more than what you achieve: having all those basis and yet zero knowledge.

> I stick to what I know about,

Yeah, sure...

> because I am there actually INSIDE the room with the tapes.

And thanks to you we've been proved that there can be somebody INSIDE the room with the tape and yet getting through endless levels of ignorance, annoyance and pedantry.

> I am not 200 miles away, like you are, GUESSING as to what exists.

While I agree to some of your points, I think you're the last person who should be pointing that out (not that I'm too far from that anyway).

> just like your inaccurate speculation (offered as fact) is unhelpful to Queen fans.

John's cleared out several times that his knowledge is far from being unique, since he's got no inside sources whatsoever. Yet it's truly impressive what he's done with such (relatively) few material and while I disagree with him rather often, it's obvious that he IS an expert and he IS an institution here. Why are you so jealous about the prestige that somebody you (apparently) don't care about has in a forum that you (apparently) don't mind is beyond me. Again: how pathetic!

> Kind of like how you said Queen played 'Mull Of Kintyre' live in May 1977, three months before it was written and six months before it was released as a single?

Priceless comment, and I loathe not having pointed that out myself.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2390 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 04:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Greg, whether you are correct or incorrect in your post becomes totally irrelevant the moment you open your mouth and speak to people in such a fashion.

Why can't you learn to communicate in a non hostile way? do you have some kind of inability to be civil?

If you want to make a post correcting John why not simply state the fact as you see them and leave it at that, why do you find it necessary to start the attack from the get go?

You truly are a piece of work Mr Brooks I am as always left speechless at your attitude to people, fans and the Queen community.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
scallyuk user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 297 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 04:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Alleged Queen Archivist wrote
"There are NOT the demos you imagine, there are merely other remixes and remnants and fragments - as I have said many times previously."

How does this differ from JSS comment that "It is true some demos do exist - but only as incomplete/variations of the tracks we already know about."

Remnants & Fragments =incomplete

remixes (your explanation - "I mean just a mix different to the familiar.") = variations

I believe that Demos in this context is widely understood to include alternate takes which you have already shown do exist ( I refer of course to Funny how love is) which although not a demo in the true sense of one band member demonstrating/teaching a new song to the rest of the band falls into this category.

" There are only five people in this world who know what does and does not exist."

They would be who? You, BHM, RMT, Jim Beach, JRD? What about the guys who did the transfer to disk becuase I don't think you have the technical skills to do that. Did you type it all into a database or was a PA involved somewhere?

Another question would be do you know - or care what's NOT in the archive but is out there among us, the fans and collectors who would do anything to keep stuff out of your hands ( note not QP's hands but YOURS Greg). Your egotistical , "look who's got the biggest" smartass responses to criticism and questioning does not win friends and influence people. In the early days some of us may have been jealous of your privileged position. Imagining having direct access to those gems but your attitude and abuse of that position has shown that you don't appreciate it. You come across as slapdash and appear to have an over inflated sense of your own importance.

I don't know you or JSS and have never met with either of you - I don't go to Fan Club conventions so I'm basing my opinions of you and JSS on conversations and threads found here and on QOL.
Your public faces are worlds apart, JSS is "one of us" a fan, a collector and a searcher of knowledge, you are patently not.

Neil






"amateurs practice till they get it right, professionals practice till they can't get it wrong"
Daveboy35 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 619 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 05:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As i read this i find myself saying "what's this all about?". i truly believe that the aforementioned greg brooks has the job we would all die for as queen fans and sift thru the relics that lie in queen's cabinet and what surely must be not only a joy to do but extremely long and tiring at times.

I know from being on here that JSS is flowing with info and Facts that boggles my mind to be honest just at the sheer amount of dedication and precision in the delivery of his work (ULITMATE COLLECTION) a prime example, and no one would just guess what's there and what isn't in the archives.

I can only imagine through research that certain things will pass through as incorrect information or not entirely accurate but seeing as JSS seems to know what he's talking about i believe we should take his word for it.


So to you John keep up the good work that you continue to do your dedication is there for all to see i'm sure of that.

And to mr greg brooks you will have to let the cat of the bag with more interesting facts about the proposed anthology to truly have believe you and trust you also.

Why don't the two of you get together and become friends because it seems that with the info you have that it would be invaluable to thing that we all love and that is QUEEN.


Yes we'll keep on tryin

we'll tread that fine line

oh oh we'll keep on tryin

till the end of time

till the end of time.



Fireplace user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 889 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 05:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen Archivist wrote:



I don't come onto this site and start offering definitive data on the latest medical breakthru's, or upon Sony's latest DVD player, or Renault's plans for a secret milk-powered car, or speculate about other such things I am not privy to, but which other people will know all about FAR MORE THAN ME.


To be completely accurate, you haven't offered anyone any useful data at all. All you do is try to stir things up on this board once in a while, which probably means you haven't worked for QP in ages. Must be because the abundance of unreleased material, eh?

For chrissake, go see a doctor and have your problem worked out. I'm really sorry it all worked out like this for you, but there is no need to take it out on the fans.


Panchgani user not visiting Queenzone.com
St Peter's Burnt Piano
Panchgani
Deity: 6372 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 06:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

> You don't know if Hangman exists

Amusing ... I do believe JSS owns a legitimate copy of this ... so evidently GB is talking shit.

I bet GB dreams of hearing the studio version of Hangman.


Roger: I like it. If you don't. Sod you!



Queen song poll: http://home.comcast.net/~vantricers/index.html



B-52's: I, I, I'm lookin for some fun - waitin for the REAL Queen Box Sets to come
Queen Archivist user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 850 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 08:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You people who think i hate John and John hates me, are wrong. We don't hate each other at all. That's just your ill-informed interpretation - some of you. I respect John's knowledge greatly, and I've said so several times in 25 years.

He and I only disagree on certain things. A few years ago I asked John to stop 'teasing' people and come out of the darkness with the facts of what he has, or does not have. But when he declined, and I got irritated. I spent ages on the phone with him but it got totally exhausting because he only hinted at innumerable things but would not confirm anything. WE CAN ALL DO THAT. Sorry, but that was no good to man or beast. I cannot go looking for recordings, or asking BM or RT about a certain session or possible rarity, if John or anyone else only hints at things in a most infuriating way, and is totally vague.

This is not an insult to John, just a summary of fact - which I'm sure he will recall. Eventually I got so frustrated that I simply suggested he and I didn't talk for a while - and that's what happened. My blood pressure dropped to normal levels as soon as i hung up. Sorry, but that is true. John is a nice chap - no real offence intended.

If anyone on QZ doesn't believe me, fine - like i care a jot. John knows my true opinion of him. It doesn't matter what some of you wrongly conclude.

So... instead on implying the existence of things, eluding to things, and hinting at things, on the phone to me, he instead did/does the same here on QZ. My opinion on that aspect of John has therefore not altered. It's not HATE, just irritation. I'm being honest, as being anything other than straight only causes more confusion.

I don't why, but you guy really resent me being forthright and candid. I say what I feel and don't worry about how my 'standing' or 'reputation' with QZ long-termers (Lifers!!!) will be effected, or how you regard me. I use the same tone as many of you use in addressing me, but you resent that too. I give as good as I get, and because I don't get all hurt and offended, like some of you do, you try all kinds of personal attacks. That's fine too - but such a waste of time. It would be better all round if you actually saw the sense of what I say, rather than take exception to the tone in which I offer it. You miss the main point too often - which, by the by, John does not. JSS sees what I say because he's not preoccupied with having a pop all the time.

I believe John stating things that I know to be wrong, helps no-one. It only makes the Chinese whispers thing get bigger. People begin to imagine all kinds of things from what John implies, and soon there are more myths out there than ever. That is not helpful, is it?

If I were to sit and write a book about the Queen sessions, which I have contempleted, John is one one the few people in the world I would try to tie up with. Does that sound like I hate him? No. Clearly not.

We are not kids, we merely irritate each other in our differences of style. John is knowledgable, for sure, I know this for certain via private email I have from him, more so than from the 'items' he sometimes shares on QZ, but that doesn't change the fact that he should not state things as fact which are simply NOT the case.

That's a fair comment, right? Don't disagree with it just because I said it and because you want to find fault in everything I offer.

Like it or not, I DO know what is in the archive, and John's words are entirely misleading - as you will discover one day on the Anthology... yes yes, I know, IF it ever happens in this lifetime (which is NOT in my control).

If John S. Stuart would like to make the extent of his knowledge known to us all, including the things he 'thinks' exist, and he puts it on the table, I will confirm or not that they exist or not. NO confusion, no guessing, no misleading misinformation. John, what do you REALLY know. What do you REALLY have to offer as fact?

I still believe that many of you


GB
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2390 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 08:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Greg

Why if you do not wish to aggravate people do you submit posts in the same tone as the first one, which surly you can see is going to provoke a negative response?

If as you say you don't care what people think of you, why then act like you do by repeatedly come back and start the attacks again?

Your second post was much more reasonable and so why you felt in necessary to begin the first one like you did is beyond me. As I said before treat as you want to be treated and you might find you get a better more helpful response.

As to John putting his cards on the table so to speak, fine, but answer this for me if you will, what's the big secret? why can't you just do the same? what does it matter if we know what's really there? we can't do anything about it, we will only hear it if QP decide it should happen so why all the cloak and dagger, I don't understand what the problem is, it only serves to play to this school boy like 'I know more than you do' that you seem to want to perpetuate with comments like your first post.

So what is the big secret? why can't YOU come clean? who is stopping you and for what possible reason?

At the end of the day it is up to them whomever they are, but I would be interested to know why it's a secret? they have nothing to gain keeping it so.



"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 08:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"I cannot go looking for recordings, or asking BM or RT about a certain session or possible rarity, if John or anyone else only hints at things in a most infuriating way, and is totally vague."

Why not? Isn't that your job - research? I am sure this is what Brian and Roger expect from to - to do your job. Private collectors do just this: they follow rumours, ask for information, send emails. What they do not do: they do not post on message boards insulting other people and boasting about how they have spent eight years labelling tapes.


I do not want any google ads here.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 09:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"I stick to what I know about, because I am there actually INSIDE the room with the tapes"

vs.

"I cannot go looking for recordings"

Forgive me for misunderstanding you, but I cannot reconcile these two statements with each other. Could someone explain to me how this works?


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 09:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I thought he left us for the year... Anyway - when You're The Only One was recorded? I'm asking this for the third time! John couldn't answer it, so now it's your turn, QA! C'mon, show yourself, destroy your fears, release your mask!

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 11:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What an odd post. The archivist from one of the world's major bands starts a topic to piss all over one of the more respected members of the QZ community. I know neither man, have followed the previous discussions with a bit of amusement, but regardless of whether or not John Stuart is 'inside the room', he has scads more credibility than Greg Brooks. The mistakes that Sir GH, Sebastian, Lester Burnham et al have pointed out are the type of mistakes you'd expect from the people here who want to know if Freddie was gay or if Brian made his own guitar. Inexcusable. Sad, because I'm sure Greg is hamstrung by the joke that is QP, but he's doing himself no favours with these types of attacks. The half-hour spent to compose his posts would be better served fact checking and proof reading his next error filled project.


You know, good times are now.
vtx user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 116 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 11:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

HEY!!! im GB and so is my wife................


x
Hank H. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 738 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Jul 06, 12:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Greg, I didn't find any useful information in your endlessly long posts. All you do is ask for information. Could you please stop repeating yourself?


Greg Brooks: "If I were to sit and write a book about the Queen sessions, which I have contempleted, John is one one the few people in the world I would try to tie up with. Does that sound like I hate him? No. Clearly not."

No, clearly not. It sounds as if you couldn't do it without him. And that exactly is YOUR problem, as a so-called "Archivist", not John's or anyone else's. He gave us far more correct information than you, without being paid for it, without insulting people, without boasting.

p.s. you promised to stay away for a year.


"I'm a great believer in actually NOT giving people what they want"

Brian May, 11 March 05