I've noticed two trends that emerge on my blog.
Either I'm posting debates with someone with regards to Black Sabbath, or I'm posting Thin Lizzy videos and links. I much prefer the latter. This is why I respect the Thin Lizzy fans, Thin Lizzy had tons of lineup changes, and even toured without Phil Lynott. I know tons of people that don't like the "reformed" Thin Lizzy, but at least theirs an element of respect to what they do. I find it appalling that REAL lineups of Black Sabbath, successful and legitmate lineups even, don't get that respect. The double standard blows my mind.
Recently a YouTuber and member of the Black Sabbath fan forums named "thesithempire", decided to engage (or maybe enrage) me in a "debate" about the sanctity and legitmacy of the Black Sabbath name, particular when it involves lineups not including the original 4 members. I could get into the history of Black Sabbath, but that would be long and boring. Sabbath, like Lizzy, and like many other bands, have had tons of lineup changes, but kept the name and kept making new music. Maybe the music wasn't always the exact same style, but it was certainly a quality product, at least in my eyes.
Unlike some of my infamous YouTube debates with people. "Thesithempire" is actually a relatively good speaker, seems well informed, can use the english language, and is probably a decent guy. Yet, after this debate ended (I had to end it because he just got too annoying as you'll see in a minute) I came across feeling the same way I always feel after I have to ban someone from my account...like the fucker must be out of his mind. You're probably thinking how the hell can that be, especially since I actually praised his intellect before even bringing it up. Well, I'm going to post the convo. I'm interested in what you Sabbath fans have to say. Some may even agree with Sith's points, and that's fair. I personally even respect his opinion, but well...he got a little carried away...and I'll explain why I feel this way.
Mr. Sith started off with a reply to a comment I made months ago to another user saying that Black Sabbath didn't end in 1978 with the firing/leaving of Ozzy Osbourne. This is a fact. You might hate it but it's still a fact. It happened. His reply:
thesithempire @blacksabfan
"With all due respect, there are still many fans who believe that Black Sabbath finished in 1979, not because they hate Dio or the later albums (nor are they making statements about superiority), but because they define Black Sabbath as the unique synthesis of four men, Iommi, Butler, Ward and Osbourne, three of which have said in interviews that they agree, and the fourth, Iommi, who recently said (on his website) that Heaven and Hell have been playing for 30 thirty years. 1 day ago
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Well there's what you believe, and there's the truth. Truth is, Black Sabbath existed in other entities besides the first one. I don't consider it any more unique or sacrosanct than any of the others, just different. Besides, listen to an interview from 1974, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1997, 2007, etc. Members have said different things depending on who they are nice with at the time. I don't think one interview or opinion truely clarifies anyone's position.
And for the 24930th time, I'm just asking why the double standard. No one has ever answered this question. Ever. No other bands that had lineup changes get debated as much as Sabbath as to whether output from certain lineups is more credible than another. This might come as a shock, but I don't feel Sabbath is in an way superior to other bands, that they merit an exception to this rule. I like Sabbath a lot, but I'm not some uber-fanboi that judges them by different rules than any other band. 1 day ago
thesithempire @blacksabfan:
There are many original Van Halen fans who disagree with the band carrying on under than name with another singer. A number of original AC/DC fans feel that way as well. So too Genesis fans, Moody Blues fans, etc., For many people, the original lineups of their favorite bands are special, in fact, sacrosanct. Personally, I love the later albums with Dio, Gillan and Hughes, but they're different bands, and deserve a different name to distinguish those significant differences. 1 day ago
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
And there's a lot of people who don't believe that with other bands. Even if people have a favorite lineup of bands such as Maiden, AC/DC, Van Halen, Purple, etc., there at least seems to be acceptance of the other lineups. Any hatred of certain lineups don't touch the people who continuely deny certain lineups of Sabbath...it's like some pathological need for people like you to stress over and over that the only legitmate lineup included Ozzy.
thesithempire @blacksabfan:
It's not about the legitimacy of a band. Of course, Iommi would move on with other musicians. It's about the sanctity of a name and what that name designates. Bands are not sports teams. They represent the musicians in the band, and if a significant change occurs and a band member departs contentiously (as opposed to his own will), then the name should change to reflect that. Would I want Iommi to carry on as Heaven and Hell with another singer if something happened to Dio? No.
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Who the hell are you to decide the sanctity. Shouldn't that be up to the guy who, I don't know, LEGALLY OWNS THE NAME??? The only band member that MIGHT of left with any contention was Bill Ward. Ozzy got fired/left...but then signed his rights away. That's not the actions of a man who's contentious about leaving. If any band members had contention with Iommi owning it, why did any of them sign their rights away? They did that of their own will. That opinion doesn't make sense. 23 hours ago
thesithempire @blacksabfan:
In fairness to Ozzy, he has a very different story about that. (In fact, even Tony has a very different story to the one that most people have read about.) The truth of this whole split-up is not out there, but one thing is certain. Ozzy's firing was extremely contentious.
Just thought I'd clarify that point.
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Again disagree. The actions described speak for themselves. Plus, your statement (the full truth isn't out there, but it was extremely contentious) How can you say it was "certainly contentious" if you don't know the full truth (which is in essence just the truth) to begin with? That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I thought I'd clarify THAT point. 6 hours ago
*I think I got him with that one...but again, that's just logic talking...there's more...we actually had like three different arguements going at once...
thesithempire @blacksabfan:
The truth is that things are rarely ever black and white. Iommi sought to change the name after Dio was fired, but management wouldn't hear of it -- which means that the Sabbath name on the later covers was not his wish or his design. The truth is that Bill Ward and Ozzy have consistently said that Black Sabbath is the original incarnation alone, and that Geezer Butler did tell Mick Wall: I always said if any of us ever left, it wouldnt be Black Sabbath anymore—and it wasnt. 1 day ago
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Well if Iommi truly cared, he would of packed it in. For every quote you provide from the Reunion era when it was all good vibes among the original members, I can provide no less than 3 when Iommi quoted excitement/hope for a particular lineup of Sabbath. It's all to be taken in context. Ozzy and Ward have their biases, but I know there's been times when Geezer was quite enthuastic about Dio being in Sabbath, and Iommi (along with Cozy Powell) harped the Headless Cross era.
Lastly, why the fuck are you even arguing with me about this? It's not like I denied that I liked the original lineup the best. I actually do. That said, I'm not changing my mind, and I don't agree with your opinion. Seems pointless. It would be one thing if I was blatantly lying about some historical facts, but I'm not. I just see Black Sabbath as 40+ years of great music, and you see 15? Maybe 9 if you count just original music. I'm not a history rewriter. It is what it is. Like it or not. 1 day ago
*Trying to end it...maybe my tone is harsh but come on, can't we agree to disagree?
thesithempire @blacksabfan: I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. No need to be defensive. My point is simple. Fans have a legitimate cause to gripe over a band-name. And I never said you were *wrong* to view things as you do. If someone says the original lineup is solely Black Sabbath that doesn't mean we hate Dio and the later incarnations. Heck, I just bought H&H and Mob Rules for the fourth time (Sanctuary deluxe remasters). I'm just saying respect the views of others who differ from yours. 1 day ago
*This is his first part that actually sort of pissed me off. I've respected his views the whole time, but honestly this debate is on a 1974 Cali. Jam video. It's not really related and it's gone on long enough. That said, who the fuck is he to tell me to respect others views when he's shitting all over mine by trying to cram his opinion down my throat? Just a question.
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
That's where I have a problem. I post these things because I enjoy sharing my music collection. I'd rather have people comment on the actual video, than rehashing pointless debates about nothing that will be settled. Also, I'm not going around on other Sabbath videos forcing my opinion down on others, yet you and others seem to show up on mine and start these "discussions". I'm not interested in a "discussion" about what is/isn't Sabbath. ITS OFF TOPIC.
Secondly, I've had this same "discussion" in some form at least 50 times on here. It's fucking old, it's annoying, and frankly I don't give a flying fuck. I've gone as far to just delete posts when it crops up, but since yours is intelligible (although still off-topic) I decided to engage it. I said I don't agree. Let it go. I'm not disrespecting your opinion anymore than you're disrespecting mine by not letting go of this futile "discussion". It works both ways.
thesithempire @blacksabfan: True. But I brought it up because you said another poster who said Sabbath ended in 1979 had a "brain fart" or made a typo. I was only pointing out that some of us who are not Dio-haters believe the band ended in 1979. But I understand if you're not interested in such discussions. 21 hours ago.
*And now starts the passive-aggressive bullshit...I go on a rant about this later...but it begins here. I'm not interested, but he seems to think he's winning now because I'm backing off. So he just keeps right on coming...
blacksabfan @thesithempire
Again, probably on something I uploaded since you're trying to accuse me of starting it.
Black Sabbath didn't end in 1979. That's a fact. It's that simple. I have a history degree and I teach it, and I'm interested in facts. It doesn't matter how much value one lineup, or if something was lost/gained etc. Black Sabbath as a band, didn't stop making music in 1979. I get your viewpoint, but your viewpoints ARE NOT FACTS. Stop confusing the two.
As a warning to thesithempire and anyone else. I'm not here to fucking debate this shit. I'm not interested in what YOU (the general populace) think is or isn't Black Sabbath. It's been hashed out over and over again for the last goddamn 30 years. Anyone who wants to comment on the merits of the video, great. Anything else will just be deleted. I'm not entertaining this crap anymore...discuss it somewhere else.
thesithempire @blacksabfan:
It's your video and you can do as you want, but for you own well-being, you aught to examine your hostility. None of us have a personal stake in any of this. I can understand taking a hard stance against trolls. But you do yourself a disservice to get so angry over a few people who believe a certain way about a band. Ignore it. Why fuel a debate you don't want? On Youtube, it's common that people post OT responses. I don't see that it's worth giving yourself a heart-attack over.
*This put me over the edge. That passive aggressive bullshit. I said I don't want to discuss it, and he keeps going, as I make a harsh blanket statement saying to drop it and he comes back at me saying I have hostility issues. Aggressive right back to passive. "Oh, look at me, that mean Blacksabfan is being all mean and hostile to me...". No asshole. You're a troll that wants the last word, so when I have the audacity to defend my points (many of which he didn't even answer well, but just accused me of being defensive and hostile) you resort to the passive-aggressive routine. Fucker thinks he's smart, and probably uses this in every debate to wear the person down. I might be an asshole, but I don't resort to tricks like this, I just come out guns blazing and make a good point and throw a few curses in for emotion. I make this point known in my longest every Youtube reply (4 boxes).
blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
You haven't seen my hostility. I'm not angry about what you believe. My patience has worn a bit thin that you CONTINUELY seem determined to make your irrevelant point featured here. You could of said it once, and I've said a couple times to let it go, but obviously you don't fucking get it. You keep harping on it and then expect me not to be a bit...well yeah, angry. I think that's completely reasonable. I've asked nicely to let it go, now I'm not going to be so nice.
So here's what I'm going to do, I'm going to just block you from every commenting again on ANYTHING of mine, because obviously you don't know when to fucking shut up. You're right, none of us have a personal stake, which is why I don't get why you are so determined to get the last word. You said your piece, I disagreed and would of been happy to let it go, but you keep on and on like it really matters to you that I understand you. I've understood your position the entire time.
You're one of those people that prefers to remember Sabbath as the original 4. That's fine. But you show up here like I'm brainwashing people into believing...the truth? Suggesting (and showing them) that there's more to Sabbath than 1970-1978. (I know, sounds terrible). I respect your opinion, but what I don't respect is how you keep bringing it up after I've said to let it go, and then making me out to be defensive and hostile? You serious? Pot calling the kettle black much?
Basically, you're a troll who like to play the passive-aggressive game. Someone who starts shit (but makes it look innocent), annoy the person with repeated asinine comments, and then when they make an effort to defend, accuse them of being hostile and say that they are the ones that are mental. I'll say it plain, I hate fuckers like you...because you think you should be able to get away with it everytime someone disagrees with you. Well, not this time asshole.
That ended it. I hope. I really don't think I'm in any way out of line. I gave him chances to back off, but he didn't want to take them. Instead, he accused me of being hostile toward his viewpoints. No, I was hostile about how you presented them...over and over and over, and then fucking shit on mine and tried to make me think I wasn't somehow allowed to defend myself. That's the most blatant passive-aggressive chicken shit I've ever seen. Like I said, and I'll say it again, I hate those types of people. Those are the people in life you have to watch out for...they might seem nice, but they think they can do no wrong and if something does, it's someone else's fault. They troll around and pick on people, looking for reactions (and hey thats what I give, I'll admit it) and when they get one, they get aggressive until they totally get shit on, and then say "oh, now I'm a victim." Cut the horseshit. Anyone with a brain can see that and shouldn't give you an ounce of respect, not online or in real life.
Eat shit and die thesithempire. People like you don't deserve any respect. Oh, and not your viewpoints, those are fine. Just you, as a person.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tons of links for Lizzy shows.
Hi everyone,
Lately I haven't been doing much on YouTube or on the blog because I'm working on a new project. This new project involves me uploading all my Lizzy/Lynott shows.
Normally I would like something like this to be a surprise, but megaupload has a policy in place that if no one downloads from the links within a 30 day period, the links become invalid. So, I thought I would post a few of the links here, so that people might download them and keep them alive until the project is up and running.
Here are the following shows:
Thin Lizzy - National Stadium Dublin 10 Jan 1973 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PFI7HJL7
Thin Lizzy - Jahrhunderthalle Frankfurt 8 Oct 1972 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1E1MNLR7
Thin Lizzy - Riviera Theater Chicago 21 April 1976 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VUW1N3MB
Thin Lizzy - Masonic Temple Detroit 26 Oct 1977 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3MUC4QVA
Thin Lizzy - Boxing Stadium Liverpool 9 Nov 1974 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=X30IDO76
Thin Lizzy - Radstadion Ludwigshafen 6 Sept 1975 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MQC5GXJA
Thin Lizzy - National Stadium Dublin 10 Dec 1975 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H6P5XVO5
Thin Lizzy - Boutwell Auditorium Birmingham AL 22 Feb 1977 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4LD0BRI2
Thin Lizzy - Palladium NYC 1 Oct 1978 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G0BKMVAZ
Thin Lizzy - Paradise Theater Boston 6 Sept 1978 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AJTXVNHC
Thin Lizzy - City Hall Cork 13 April 1980 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6DZ36GA5
Thin Lizzy - Lorelei Amphitheatre St. Goarshausen 29 Aug 1981 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AX2O3DB7
Thin Lizzy - Regal Theatre Hitchin 26 Jan 1983 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z660WB60
Thin Lizzy - Zeppelinfield Nuremberg 4 Sept 1983 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SVZM1TVS
Thin Lizzy - Centre Brighton 25 Feb 1983 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XRIKL6Q8
Grand Slam - Wild Weekender Great Yarmouth (complete SBD) 1984-10-12 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8WU5NCI4
Grand Slam - Rock City Nottingham 26 Nov 1984 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BZUXD9IW
That's about it for now. I eventually plan to have every show in my hard drive uploaded. Keep in mind some of these links contain lots of big files. All the shows are lossless and in .flac format. Don't ask me to convert them because I'm not going to. There's plenty of good .flac players and many ways to convert...youll have to research it yourself if you're not familiar with it.
Enjoy all the links. I think this makes up for all those posts I said I was going to make and never did.
Lately I haven't been doing much on YouTube or on the blog because I'm working on a new project. This new project involves me uploading all my Lizzy/Lynott shows.
Normally I would like something like this to be a surprise, but megaupload has a policy in place that if no one downloads from the links within a 30 day period, the links become invalid. So, I thought I would post a few of the links here, so that people might download them and keep them alive until the project is up and running.
Here are the following shows:
Thin Lizzy - National Stadium Dublin 10 Jan 1973 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PFI7HJL7
Thin Lizzy - Jahrhunderthalle Frankfurt 8 Oct 1972 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1E1MNLR7
Thin Lizzy - Riviera Theater Chicago 21 April 1976 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VUW1N3MB
Thin Lizzy - Masonic Temple Detroit 26 Oct 1977 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3MUC4QVA
Thin Lizzy - Boxing Stadium Liverpool 9 Nov 1974 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=X30IDO76
Thin Lizzy - Radstadion Ludwigshafen 6 Sept 1975 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MQC5GXJA
Thin Lizzy - National Stadium Dublin 10 Dec 1975 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H6P5XVO5
Thin Lizzy - Boutwell Auditorium Birmingham AL 22 Feb 1977 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4LD0BRI2
Thin Lizzy - Palladium NYC 1 Oct 1978 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G0BKMVAZ
Thin Lizzy - Paradise Theater Boston 6 Sept 1978 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AJTXVNHC
Thin Lizzy - City Hall Cork 13 April 1980 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6DZ36GA5
Thin Lizzy - Lorelei Amphitheatre St. Goarshausen 29 Aug 1981 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AX2O3DB7
Thin Lizzy - Regal Theatre Hitchin 26 Jan 1983 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z660WB60
Thin Lizzy - Zeppelinfield Nuremberg 4 Sept 1983 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SVZM1TVS
Thin Lizzy - Centre Brighton 25 Feb 1983 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XRIKL6Q8
Grand Slam - Wild Weekender Great Yarmouth (complete SBD) 1984-10-12 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8WU5NCI4
Grand Slam - Rock City Nottingham 26 Nov 1984 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BZUXD9IW
That's about it for now. I eventually plan to have every show in my hard drive uploaded. Keep in mind some of these links contain lots of big files. All the shows are lossless and in .flac format. Don't ask me to convert them because I'm not going to. There's plenty of good .flac players and many ways to convert...youll have to research it yourself if you're not familiar with it.
Enjoy all the links. I think this makes up for all those posts I said I was going to make and never did.
Friday, March 26, 2010
OMG it's OMaGh.
Hi everyone.
Recently, RL has decided to release the famous Phil Lynott solo gig, 'Omagh 1982' to the public.
That said, demanding that everyone thank them for it is a bit silly. They had the gig for nearly 6 years (at least) and didn't bother to do anything with it until now. Why now? Scroll down my blog and put 2 & 2 together.
Again, the real thanks go to the person who was able to get this from Phil Lynott to begin with, which is something RL has never even mentioned...
Now to the show itself...it' a great SBD audio. The copy that RL has been giving out has gaps between all the songs AND is lossy. They assumed it wasn't based on the original notes I received with it, but upon further review, it's definitely lossy. However, the quality alone is superb, and well worth the download.
I took it upon myself to also open up all the files, remove the annoying gaps, and reconvert to new flac files, all aligned on sector boundaries. It's definitely an improvement, and should be the definitive version until a lossless version appears.
Here is the link for the entire show:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IAY2G0P9
Enjoy the show everyone.
Recently, RL has decided to release the famous Phil Lynott solo gig, 'Omagh 1982' to the public.
That said, demanding that everyone thank them for it is a bit silly. They had the gig for nearly 6 years (at least) and didn't bother to do anything with it until now. Why now? Scroll down my blog and put 2 & 2 together.
Again, the real thanks go to the person who was able to get this from Phil Lynott to begin with, which is something RL has never even mentioned...
Now to the show itself...it' a great SBD audio. The copy that RL has been giving out has gaps between all the songs AND is lossy. They assumed it wasn't based on the original notes I received with it, but upon further review, it's definitely lossy. However, the quality alone is superb, and well worth the download.
I took it upon myself to also open up all the files, remove the annoying gaps, and reconvert to new flac files, all aligned on sector boundaries. It's definitely an improvement, and should be the definitive version until a lossless version appears.
Here is the link for the entire show:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IAY2G0P9
Enjoy the show everyone.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thanks.
While RL is busy doing damage control (or touting themselves as heroes, depending upon your POV), I'm going to thank the REAL person responsible for "In the Delta" coming to light. I'm sort of disgusted at watching RL try to claim this as their doing. It's not like the track was discovered by them. Someone had it first. Hopefully I'll get to meet him personally and have a bit of a chat. Maybe someone who knows him can point him in my direction...
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The "Circle of Fools" has done it again!
Hi everyone.
The Thin Lizzy supporters that frequent this blog have already read about my past experiences with Thin Lizzy fan site "Rock Legend". Yeah, I don't like them and they don't like me. Fine. I must share this latest run-in with them though, to share with you some news, and to share with you THE TRUTH.
The big news is that the ultimate holy grail track "In the Delta" is now on YouTube.
It was posted there by "Father Jack". People that "know", know who he is. From time to time, him and others in the RL crew like to throw gold coins to us "less forunate" Thin Lizzy supporters. They claim to find all this rare stuff, and make it available ASAP to everyone. They claim they want to share other rare tracks but can't because you need rare tracks to trade for other rare tracks not in their possession. This logic makes perfectly good sense.
However, this is NOT what RL does. "In the Delta" is proof of that. I've said it for a couple years now, and this time I have indisputable proof of their TRUE motives.
The reason "In the Delta" is up on YouTube now? IT's simply because I doubted they had it, and they wanted to "prove me wrong". How dumb is that? Well, not as dumb as what you're going to read here below.
This started about a week ago. Another YouTube user, completely out of the blue, emailed me the lyrics to "In the Delta". He said he had owned it for years and it was a rare trade-only item. He insinuated that I might be able to contact the person who had another rare track and set up a trade. I said I wasn't interested though, but kept the correspondence.
Then I decided, as a complete joke, to email RL saying I had the track. This is shit that happens quite often. Am I a jerk, maybe...but I'm also one that likes to have a little fun now and then. I contacted the webmaster of Rock Legend, knowing full well he would tell anyone within earshot...but not expecting anything major to happen. Here is the actual correspondence:
Me = Red, RL = Blue
Sent: Mon 3/15/10 3:13 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Wooh wooh wooh wooh.......(for one minute or so)
I've been working down in the delta, Lord it done me no good. When your working out in the delta all you is blood, sweat, and blood in the delta.
Wooh wooh wooh wooh.....................................................
I've been working on that chain-gang, breaking rocks for the man on that chain gang. You get no pity that man don't give a damn, damn, damn in the delta.
Wooh wooh wooh wooh.....................................................
Who says there has to be a moral. See my berathed has taken a fall. Who says I'm resting on my laurels. Who says I got anything in common with you at all, see as silly has it seems...so tired living out someboby else's dream. So tired living out somebody else's dream. More time I waste more time I must redeem. So tired living out somebody else's dream
Just ask Prince Laurence of the Bahamas. So tired living out somebody else's dream for the flash scene.
Thought you might be interested.
RS
rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Mon 3/15/10 6:24 PM
To: Me
So have you managed to get hold of a copy of In the Delta or is it just the lyrics you have Ryan?
Jim
Sent: Mon 3/15/10 9:40 PM All I have to say is that I've waited for this moment a long time now. I wouldn't waste my time if it wasn't going to be worth my while.
I'd post a sample, but I don't have permission. This is surely something you and some others understand...right? There's protocol involved...
RS
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Tue 3/16/10 5:37 PM
I hope you enjoy it - it really a very interesting track - but nowhopefully you will see that sometimes to get access to certain veryinteresting tracks you just cannot post them and share them otherwisesources just dry up!
Sent: Tue 3/16/10 10:42 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
It is a very interesting track. Although I'm not sure how YOU know it's interesting...It is my understanding that I'm exactly the 7th person to have a copy. That's what person #6 told me. If my calculations are correct, there's no way you or anyone else you personally talk to on a regular basis has a copy of it. That would make the number much higher than 7. So, someone's not telling the truth...
But that said, yes I will enjoy it. And it's not completely out of the question that it could turn up on YouTube. But I have some other people I need to talk to a bit first, some more shopping around to do, you know how it is.
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Wed 3/17/10 5:11 PM
Ryan not sure if your information is correct and that is the problem withthe world of Thin Lizzy trading as you, me or anyone else does not reallyknow who has what! So yes I have a copy in fact I have had a copy before you and I firstcommunicated but as you know after my experience I stopped all trading so
I will just add before I finish can I urge you to think very carefully before spreading the track far and wide as there is one or two rare trackwhich others are trying to track down and secure and if In the Delta was"out there" the people are trying to secure tracks like Story of my Life and others. So I know you will make your own mind up on this but just think about ityou may have a key part to play in helping to get the last few of the losttracks unearthed and contrary to your thoughts I know that the people Ihave contact with have always wanted to share all the tracts once they hadmanaged to release the tracks which are held by others.
So I will go now and I genuinely hope you enjoy the track. J
Sent: Wed 3/17/10 8:43 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Nah, I'm sure my information is correct. Here's why:No one from RL is going to give me the time of day, except for maybe you, if I had a question about any unreleased material. I've known this for a long time, and when I was booted from the forums (and I was booted) I didn't look back.
The guy I got the track from was the long time owner. He knows exactly who has the track. I know copies have been VERY LIMITED, for the exact reasons you mentioned. If someone from RL had it, I wouldn't of wasted my time gloating to you about it. In fact, I would of posted it already, probably just to stick it to them even more. Also, no one from RL is going to come to me, out of the blue, and just say, "Hey, Ryan, you want a copy of this track..." Get real Jim. I know you guys have been looking for it for a long, long time. Hell, I know when the whole Unfinished Sympathy business came about, no one at RL had even heard of "In the Delta". I know you're bluffing, and I know you're trying to not make a big deal about it because you don't want to "overplay" your hand. Hell, it's probably the closest you guys are going to get to acquiring that track.
Another reason I know you don't have it, is that it would of appeared as at least a snippet in what "nothinbutblue" posted on YouTube. I know his identity too. I know where those tracks are coming from, and I know why some appear as snippets. C'mon Jim, if you really had the track, you would of said as much in the very first message and probably not bothered replying to me. But you guys won't let it go until you either get some information from me on how to acquire it, or convince me to cough it up...neither which are going to happen.
And even if you do have it, I could totally piss up any effort you guys have of acquiring other rare tracks. If that is what you're doing...you'd think after 20 years you'd have gotten somewhere with that by now.
I might be young, but I've played a lot of Poker in my time. I'm damn near unbeatable at that game. This is the same exact thing in my eyes.
That's all I have to say on this. You can reply back, but I won't be responding any further. I wish you the best Jim.
RS
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Thu 3/18/10 5:24 PM
Okay Ryan you believe what you want to believe but if you are such agood poker player you should know when to fold and admit you do not havea winning hand! And I am sorry to disappoint you but your source does not have the fullpicture so if you still think I do not have it then if I say it is a slowbluesey number maybe you will realise that I do! So you came over to gloat well sorry to piss on the parade with that one -so I guess we can expect it on Youtube and if only you had taken time withme some time ago maybe you and I would have shared more than we did but asyou will not be reading this I guess you will never know! J
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Sun 3/21/10 7:52 AM
Don't think we have it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oECJDo1jB9g
Sent: Sun 3/21/10 1:35 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Well, guess I was wrong...
And now you're thinking, you and Phil O. both, that "Yes, we finally got that SOB this time."
Well, here's the funniest part of all...
Wait for it...
... ...
I NEVER HAD THE TRACK TO BEGIN WITH.
Amazing what a set of lyrics and a reputation can do for you. You should of stuck to your guns at the beginning and assumed I didn't have it. I knew either way, whether you had the track or not, that I could get some type of reaction out of you. However, this is totally beyond even my expectations.
Now I have to ask...do you have any more rare tracks that you're saving to "get back at people"? I mean, you claim that you need to be saving them to trade for other rarities, but on a whim you can just post them to supposedly get back at me for claiming you didn't have it? If anything, all you've done is make people question your motives. Are you really saving them for the whole "rarities for rarities" excuse, or using them as golden nuggets to dole out on any given whim to make it seem like you're bigshots? Right now it looks a lot more like the latter. Not that I care HOW you guys look to a casual observer, but YOU might.
Thanks for the gift. And the laughs.
RS
That last paragraph in my last message to them says it all. And the rest of it is the reason "In the Delta" is on YouTube. They've had this track and other tracks in their back pockets for years. Perhaps at one time they were trying to trade them for rare tracks, but that time has long passed. The holders of the few tracks they don't have want nothing to do with them. So, yes they could share them, but they don't. They save them for special occasions...like this. They wanted to beat me to the bank, because they were worried I might get other rare tracks, or post the track on YouTube myself. Well, thinking they were gonna get me good...they posted it themselves. Thanks guys.
But don't let them tell you they are doing it because they are generous, or they are doing it because they wanted to share it. If I didn't press them, it never would of turned up. They are doing it because they THINK they got me good...oh no, no, no.
Can't wait to see how they will spin this. They are going to need to do some damage control.
Enjoy the track guys.
Ryan
The Thin Lizzy supporters that frequent this blog have already read about my past experiences with Thin Lizzy fan site "Rock Legend". Yeah, I don't like them and they don't like me. Fine. I must share this latest run-in with them though, to share with you some news, and to share with you THE TRUTH.
The big news is that the ultimate holy grail track "In the Delta" is now on YouTube.
It was posted there by "Father Jack". People that "know", know who he is. From time to time, him and others in the RL crew like to throw gold coins to us "less forunate" Thin Lizzy supporters. They claim to find all this rare stuff, and make it available ASAP to everyone. They claim they want to share other rare tracks but can't because you need rare tracks to trade for other rare tracks not in their possession. This logic makes perfectly good sense.
However, this is NOT what RL does. "In the Delta" is proof of that. I've said it for a couple years now, and this time I have indisputable proof of their TRUE motives.
The reason "In the Delta" is up on YouTube now? IT's simply because I doubted they had it, and they wanted to "prove me wrong". How dumb is that? Well, not as dumb as what you're going to read here below.
This started about a week ago. Another YouTube user, completely out of the blue, emailed me the lyrics to "In the Delta". He said he had owned it for years and it was a rare trade-only item. He insinuated that I might be able to contact the person who had another rare track and set up a trade. I said I wasn't interested though, but kept the correspondence.
Then I decided, as a complete joke, to email RL saying I had the track. This is shit that happens quite often. Am I a jerk, maybe...but I'm also one that likes to have a little fun now and then. I contacted the webmaster of Rock Legend, knowing full well he would tell anyone within earshot...but not expecting anything major to happen. Here is the actual correspondence:
Me = Red, RL = Blue
Sent: Mon 3/15/10 3:13 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Wooh wooh wooh wooh.......(for one minute or so)
I've been working down in the delta, Lord it done me no good. When your working out in the delta all you is blood, sweat, and blood in the delta.
Wooh wooh wooh wooh.....................................................
I've been working on that chain-gang, breaking rocks for the man on that chain gang. You get no pity that man don't give a damn, damn, damn in the delta.
Wooh wooh wooh wooh.....................................................
Who says there has to be a moral. See my berathed has taken a fall. Who says I'm resting on my laurels. Who says I got anything in common with you at all, see as silly has it seems...so tired living out someboby else's dream. So tired living out somebody else's dream. More time I waste more time I must redeem. So tired living out somebody else's dream
Just ask Prince Laurence of the Bahamas. So tired living out somebody else's dream for the flash scene.
Thought you might be interested.
RS
rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Mon 3/15/10 6:24 PM
To: Me
So have you managed to get hold of a copy of In the Delta or is it just the lyrics you have Ryan?
Jim
Sent: Mon 3/15/10 9:40 PM All I have to say is that I've waited for this moment a long time now. I wouldn't waste my time if it wasn't going to be worth my while.
I'd post a sample, but I don't have permission. This is surely something you and some others understand...right? There's protocol involved...
RS
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Tue 3/16/10 5:37 PM
I hope you enjoy it - it really a very interesting track - but nowhopefully you will see that sometimes to get access to certain veryinteresting tracks you just cannot post them and share them otherwisesources just dry up!
Sent: Tue 3/16/10 10:42 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
It is a very interesting track. Although I'm not sure how YOU know it's interesting...It is my understanding that I'm exactly the 7th person to have a copy. That's what person #6 told me. If my calculations are correct, there's no way you or anyone else you personally talk to on a regular basis has a copy of it. That would make the number much higher than 7. So, someone's not telling the truth...
But that said, yes I will enjoy it. And it's not completely out of the question that it could turn up on YouTube. But I have some other people I need to talk to a bit first, some more shopping around to do, you know how it is.
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Wed 3/17/10 5:11 PM
Ryan not sure if your information is correct and that is the problem withthe world of Thin Lizzy trading as you, me or anyone else does not reallyknow who has what! So yes I have a copy in fact I have had a copy before you and I firstcommunicated but as you know after my experience I stopped all trading so
I will just add before I finish can I urge you to think very carefully before spreading the track far and wide as there is one or two rare trackwhich others are trying to track down and secure and if In the Delta was"out there" the people are trying to secure tracks like Story of my Life and others. So I know you will make your own mind up on this but just think about ityou may have a key part to play in helping to get the last few of the losttracks unearthed and contrary to your thoughts I know that the people Ihave contact with have always wanted to share all the tracts once they hadmanaged to release the tracks which are held by others.
So I will go now and I genuinely hope you enjoy the track. J
Sent: Wed 3/17/10 8:43 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Nah, I'm sure my information is correct. Here's why:No one from RL is going to give me the time of day, except for maybe you, if I had a question about any unreleased material. I've known this for a long time, and when I was booted from the forums (and I was booted) I didn't look back.
The guy I got the track from was the long time owner. He knows exactly who has the track. I know copies have been VERY LIMITED, for the exact reasons you mentioned. If someone from RL had it, I wouldn't of wasted my time gloating to you about it. In fact, I would of posted it already, probably just to stick it to them even more. Also, no one from RL is going to come to me, out of the blue, and just say, "Hey, Ryan, you want a copy of this track..." Get real Jim. I know you guys have been looking for it for a long, long time. Hell, I know when the whole Unfinished Sympathy business came about, no one at RL had even heard of "In the Delta". I know you're bluffing, and I know you're trying to not make a big deal about it because you don't want to "overplay" your hand. Hell, it's probably the closest you guys are going to get to acquiring that track.
Another reason I know you don't have it, is that it would of appeared as at least a snippet in what "nothinbutblue" posted on YouTube. I know his identity too. I know where those tracks are coming from, and I know why some appear as snippets. C'mon Jim, if you really had the track, you would of said as much in the very first message and probably not bothered replying to me. But you guys won't let it go until you either get some information from me on how to acquire it, or convince me to cough it up...neither which are going to happen.
And even if you do have it, I could totally piss up any effort you guys have of acquiring other rare tracks. If that is what you're doing...you'd think after 20 years you'd have gotten somewhere with that by now.
I might be young, but I've played a lot of Poker in my time. I'm damn near unbeatable at that game. This is the same exact thing in my eyes.
That's all I have to say on this. You can reply back, but I won't be responding any further. I wish you the best Jim.
RS
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Thu 3/18/10 5:24 PM
Okay Ryan you believe what you want to believe but if you are such agood poker player you should know when to fold and admit you do not havea winning hand! And I am sorry to disappoint you but your source does not have the fullpicture so if you still think I do not have it then if I say it is a slowbluesey number maybe you will realise that I do! So you came over to gloat well sorry to piss on the parade with that one -so I guess we can expect it on Youtube and if only you had taken time withme some time ago maybe you and I would have shared more than we did but asyou will not be reading this I guess you will never know! J
From: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Sent: Sun 3/21/10 7:52 AM
Don't think we have it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oECJDo1jB9g
Sent: Sun 3/21/10 1:35 PM
To: rocklegend@thin-lizzy.info
Well, guess I was wrong...
And now you're thinking, you and Phil O. both, that "Yes, we finally got that SOB this time."
Well, here's the funniest part of all...
Wait for it...
... ...
I NEVER HAD THE TRACK TO BEGIN WITH.
Amazing what a set of lyrics and a reputation can do for you. You should of stuck to your guns at the beginning and assumed I didn't have it. I knew either way, whether you had the track or not, that I could get some type of reaction out of you. However, this is totally beyond even my expectations.
Now I have to ask...do you have any more rare tracks that you're saving to "get back at people"? I mean, you claim that you need to be saving them to trade for other rarities, but on a whim you can just post them to supposedly get back at me for claiming you didn't have it? If anything, all you've done is make people question your motives. Are you really saving them for the whole "rarities for rarities" excuse, or using them as golden nuggets to dole out on any given whim to make it seem like you're bigshots? Right now it looks a lot more like the latter. Not that I care HOW you guys look to a casual observer, but YOU might.
Thanks for the gift. And the laughs.
RS
That last paragraph in my last message to them says it all. And the rest of it is the reason "In the Delta" is on YouTube. They've had this track and other tracks in their back pockets for years. Perhaps at one time they were trying to trade them for rare tracks, but that time has long passed. The holders of the few tracks they don't have want nothing to do with them. So, yes they could share them, but they don't. They save them for special occasions...like this. They wanted to beat me to the bank, because they were worried I might get other rare tracks, or post the track on YouTube myself. Well, thinking they were gonna get me good...they posted it themselves. Thanks guys.
But don't let them tell you they are doing it because they are generous, or they are doing it because they wanted to share it. If I didn't press them, it never would of turned up. They are doing it because they THINK they got me good...oh no, no, no.
Can't wait to see how they will spin this. They are going to need to do some damage control.
Enjoy the track guys.
Ryan
Thursday, February 4, 2010
DimeADozen needs to get a fucking clue.
Hi everyone.
Just got done posting a torrent. It took 2 hrs. It shouldn't take 2 hrs, especially since I had it prepared last night. Leave it to DIME to fuck things up and leave me pissed off.
I attempted to post a lossless version of "Snowed in Cork". It contains some soundcheck tracks from both Cork and Hammersmith, as well as the first 5 tracks from the gig at Cork on 13 April 1980. Shortly after I posted it, it was banned because of track number 10.
Track 10 is "Don't Play Around" (Soundcheck from 29 May 1980 @ Hammersmith)
I looked at the link they gave me, and all it said was that it was officially released as the B-Side of the Killer on the Loose single. I knew that's bullshit. That was a studio release. So I emailed them for an explanation. This is what I got:
I'm going to post this email exchange, tell me if you think my logic is flawed at all. I don't think it is, but DIME seems very adamant about their stance.
Me = Red
Dime = Blue
Hi.
I uploaded torrent #288846 - Thin Lizzy Snowed in Cork, and it was banned because someone claimed the track "Don't Play Around" (from the Hammersmith Soundcheck was used on the "Killer on the Loose" B-Side.
Well, it wasn't. The B-Side for that single was the Studio version of "Don't Play Around", not what I posted.
Hi Ryan
The released studio version of "Don't Play Around" was recorded at the Hammersmith soundcheck in 1980 and was reworked in the studio so its to iffy to run here.
best
Brother_52
Reworked? They aren't even close to the same thing! Likewise, that information isn't even listed on the link provided and I'd like to see some proof of that before you start banning torrents.
If you have the Swedish 2CD release of "The Boys Are Back In Town" from from 2001 on Vertigo 548483-2,please read the sleeve notes written by Jörgen Holmstedt in the inner tray. Thats sufficient information for us to call this particular track off limits on DIME.
I think that's being way too picky. But whatever. When I put it up without that track, I'll expect you to show up and explain to everyone else why that track isn't there.
No its not whatever, its one of the reason why DIME still exists. We were forced to close down twice in not too distant past. On both occasions, it was because of one track in one torrent. That's all it takes. Sorry but we are not willing to put DIME in risk simply because you don't like the way it affects your uploading.
"When I put it up without that track, I'll expect you to show up and explain to everyone else why that track isn't there."
No, you could just link to this page
http://www.trcjt.ca/ap960/lizzy/sc_disk2.html
Because it was "probably recorded". Wow, that's convincing evidence that obviously didn't come from listening to the two songs...
Well if I am not slightly mistaken the same thing is even mentioned in "The Rocker" by Mark Putterford,so if you know more than the journalists Holmstedt and Putterford who both had followed the band very close,well good on you.
"Probably recorded" makes this a conflict with an official release and then the track is off limits on DIME until evidence can be provided to prove otherwise.
I just got out my copy of the Rocker, it doesn't say anything of the sort. It talks about a live version of "Chinatown" being recorded for a b-side at one of the hammersmith gigs, but not anything about "Don't Play Around" being reworked or used for any singles. In theory, then why should any demos be allowed here? Those songs end up 'reworked' and on official releases...seems like the same thing to me.
I know you've had "legal issues" twice, but there's a difference between caution and sheer paranoia.
Don't bother to send anymore messages. I'm not reading them, and I've said all I need to say.
I figured I had pushed my luck enough at this point. I don't agree with their logic. A reworked track is something different. If it was anyone else they probably wouldn't give a shit, or if Brother_52 wasn't some Lizzy 'expert' it would pass right under their noses. I've seen it before with regards to certain Sabbath posts.
Oh, and if you want the track that caused all this, look no further:
www.megaupload.com/?d=BZ0AG0AK
You tell me if it sounds like the studio version...
EDIT:
And for the record, DIME, if you keep sending me stupid emails, which give various excuses but never any apologies for when you are actually wrong about something (and you are), then expect me to keep posting them on my blog.
Since I initiated the correspondence, nor do I feel I have anything to hide, I don't have a problem with it.
I loved this though:
Me: "In theory, then why should any demos be allowed here? Those songs end up 'reworked' and on official releases...seems like the same thing to me.
Dime: "Then make your own tracker with your own rules and take the legal responsibility yourself."
Translation: Good point. But we don't give a fuck and won't admit you make sense. We'll just bitch at you like it's your fault. Then get mad because you've chosen to highlight this idiocy in a public forum out of our control.
I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if they were halfway respectful. But they aren't. They are more worried about legal issues than trying to deal with any of the people that use DIME. If someone asks a question which may be answered in the FAQ page (despite the fact they have shit all over the place in there and it's hard to navigate as it is), they get all condescending and come down on them like the jerks they are. Here's another example from another post on another torrent.
#3776571 by Blacksabfan at 2010-01-30 04:33:41 GMT
Thanks for posting the AUD of this.
The thing thats always intrigued me is that the officially released "Live in Sweden" disc contains the supposed Avesta show (SBD) as a bonus disc, yet from simply listening to this and that disc, the shows aren't the same. I'm fairly certain that this is Avesta...so I wonder what that bonus disc really is.
#3777085 by Brother_52 at 2010-01-30 12:02:55 GMT
This Avesta recording is NOT the same show as the bonus disc "Live In Sweden" and not in conflict with the Zoom release. I own the Avesta silver discs as well as the Zoom release.
From what I remember the Zoom release is from
1983-08-05 Brunnsparken,Örebro,Sweden
and is not in conflict with any of the 3 musketeers recordings which is in circulation in trading circles
Brother_52
The Mod Team
#3777819 by Blacksabfan at 2010-01-30 17:43:31 GMT
That's exactly what I already said...
#3778084 by Brother_52 at 2010-01-30 19:20:01 GMT
There is a major difference,I speak on behalf of DIME.
Several users have reported this torrent as wikipedia says the official release on Zoom has material from Avesta. If there is a conflict between this torrent and and an official release this torrent would not be allowed shared here as it could cause DIME legal problems. As the moderators see it there is no problem with this torrent running here as either is this torrent wrongly dated or wikipedia/Zoom Records have got the date for the recording on the bonus disc wrong.
And by the way, that's posted in the comments section and is public. I didn't have to go through my email to dig those out.
See my point. It would be fine if they just would concur, because the reason I made my first post was to show to others that it wasn't the same thing as the supposed official release. But, he not only ignores my post and copies the exact same information, he then goes on to say about how his expertise in Lizzy supercedes mine because he's a moderator and he speaks on "behalf of Dime". Whoopie shit. There's easier ways to agree with someone than belitting someone else's knowledge and touting your credentials.
Secondly, I would think posting a show that claims to be from a date that already has an official release would be something that could cause a legal issue. Granted we know they both aren't the same, but it's not like any lawyer or music label is going to know this. So, it seems like you're taking a risk by letting it remain on the tracker. That's fine and good, and I don't even disagree, it should be on the tracker because it's not the same show. I'm just saying it might lead to confusion, and could lead to legal trouble from those who aren't as informed about such matters. Yet, you seem to be willing to risk it in this case, but not for my case. It almost is like you just seem to pick battles how you see fit, and not whether they make sense or not. The track I posted as a different guitar solo and runs significantly longer than the official release. It's not even remotely close to being the same. Reworked to me means it's way different and should be allowed. Hell, it's more different than a lot of demos that get reworked...but yet those aren't banned. It almost seems like they enjoy picking on me when I upload stuff and overly scrutinzing it just because they don't like me making examples of them to the general public, and pointing out their mistakes and contradictions.
And yes, YOU DO MAKE THEM. Just because you're running DIME doesn't mean you're infallible.
It's that attitude above, and their resistance to apologize and correct mistakes that makes me post private email from them in a blog.
Just got done posting a torrent. It took 2 hrs. It shouldn't take 2 hrs, especially since I had it prepared last night. Leave it to DIME to fuck things up and leave me pissed off.
I attempted to post a lossless version of "Snowed in Cork". It contains some soundcheck tracks from both Cork and Hammersmith, as well as the first 5 tracks from the gig at Cork on 13 April 1980. Shortly after I posted it, it was banned because of track number 10.
Track 10 is "Don't Play Around" (Soundcheck from 29 May 1980 @ Hammersmith)
I looked at the link they gave me, and all it said was that it was officially released as the B-Side of the Killer on the Loose single. I knew that's bullshit. That was a studio release. So I emailed them for an explanation. This is what I got:
I'm going to post this email exchange, tell me if you think my logic is flawed at all. I don't think it is, but DIME seems very adamant about their stance.
Me = Red
Dime = Blue
Hi.
I uploaded torrent #288846 - Thin Lizzy Snowed in Cork, and it was banned because someone claimed the track "Don't Play Around" (from the Hammersmith Soundcheck was used on the "Killer on the Loose" B-Side.
Well, it wasn't. The B-Side for that single was the Studio version of "Don't Play Around", not what I posted.
Hi Ryan
The released studio version of "Don't Play Around" was recorded at the Hammersmith soundcheck in 1980 and was reworked in the studio so its to iffy to run here.
best
Brother_52
Reworked? They aren't even close to the same thing! Likewise, that information isn't even listed on the link provided and I'd like to see some proof of that before you start banning torrents.
If you have the Swedish 2CD release of "The Boys Are Back In Town" from from 2001 on Vertigo 548483-2,please read the sleeve notes written by Jörgen Holmstedt in the inner tray. Thats sufficient information for us to call this particular track off limits on DIME.
I think that's being way too picky. But whatever. When I put it up without that track, I'll expect you to show up and explain to everyone else why that track isn't there.
No its not whatever, its one of the reason why DIME still exists. We were forced to close down twice in not too distant past. On both occasions, it was because of one track in one torrent. That's all it takes. Sorry but we are not willing to put DIME in risk simply because you don't like the way it affects your uploading.
"When I put it up without that track, I'll expect you to show up and explain to everyone else why that track isn't there."
No, you could just link to this page
http://www.trcjt.ca/ap960/lizzy/sc_disk2.html
Because it was "probably recorded". Wow, that's convincing evidence that obviously didn't come from listening to the two songs...
Well if I am not slightly mistaken the same thing is even mentioned in "The Rocker" by Mark Putterford,so if you know more than the journalists Holmstedt and Putterford who both had followed the band very close,well good on you.
"Probably recorded" makes this a conflict with an official release and then the track is off limits on DIME until evidence can be provided to prove otherwise.
I just got out my copy of the Rocker, it doesn't say anything of the sort. It talks about a live version of "Chinatown" being recorded for a b-side at one of the hammersmith gigs, but not anything about "Don't Play Around" being reworked or used for any singles. In theory, then why should any demos be allowed here? Those songs end up 'reworked' and on official releases...seems like the same thing to me.
I know you've had "legal issues" twice, but there's a difference between caution and sheer paranoia.
Don't bother to send anymore messages. I'm not reading them, and I've said all I need to say.
I figured I had pushed my luck enough at this point. I don't agree with their logic. A reworked track is something different. If it was anyone else they probably wouldn't give a shit, or if Brother_52 wasn't some Lizzy 'expert' it would pass right under their noses. I've seen it before with regards to certain Sabbath posts.
Oh, and if you want the track that caused all this, look no further:
www.megaupload.com/?d=BZ0AG0AK
You tell me if it sounds like the studio version...
EDIT:
And for the record, DIME, if you keep sending me stupid emails, which give various excuses but never any apologies for when you are actually wrong about something (and you are), then expect me to keep posting them on my blog.
Since I initiated the correspondence, nor do I feel I have anything to hide, I don't have a problem with it.
I loved this though:
Me: "In theory, then why should any demos be allowed here? Those songs end up 'reworked' and on official releases...seems like the same thing to me.
Dime: "Then make your own tracker with your own rules and take the legal responsibility yourself."
Translation: Good point. But we don't give a fuck and won't admit you make sense. We'll just bitch at you like it's your fault. Then get mad because you've chosen to highlight this idiocy in a public forum out of our control.
I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if they were halfway respectful. But they aren't. They are more worried about legal issues than trying to deal with any of the people that use DIME. If someone asks a question which may be answered in the FAQ page (despite the fact they have shit all over the place in there and it's hard to navigate as it is), they get all condescending and come down on them like the jerks they are. Here's another example from another post on another torrent.
#3776571 by Blacksabfan at 2010-01-30 04:33:41 GMT
Thanks for posting the AUD of this.
The thing thats always intrigued me is that the officially released "Live in Sweden" disc contains the supposed Avesta show (SBD) as a bonus disc, yet from simply listening to this and that disc, the shows aren't the same. I'm fairly certain that this is Avesta...so I wonder what that bonus disc really is.
#3777085 by Brother_52 at 2010-01-30 12:02:55 GMT
This Avesta recording is NOT the same show as the bonus disc "Live In Sweden" and not in conflict with the Zoom release. I own the Avesta silver discs as well as the Zoom release.
From what I remember the Zoom release is from
1983-08-05 Brunnsparken,Örebro,Sweden
and is not in conflict with any of the 3 musketeers recordings which is in circulation in trading circles
Brother_52
The Mod Team
#3777819 by Blacksabfan at 2010-01-30 17:43:31 GMT
That's exactly what I already said...
#3778084 by Brother_52 at 2010-01-30 19:20:01 GMT
There is a major difference,I speak on behalf of DIME.
Several users have reported this torrent as wikipedia says the official release on Zoom has material from Avesta. If there is a conflict between this torrent and and an official release this torrent would not be allowed shared here as it could cause DIME legal problems. As the moderators see it there is no problem with this torrent running here as either is this torrent wrongly dated or wikipedia/Zoom Records have got the date for the recording on the bonus disc wrong.
And by the way, that's posted in the comments section and is public. I didn't have to go through my email to dig those out.
See my point. It would be fine if they just would concur, because the reason I made my first post was to show to others that it wasn't the same thing as the supposed official release. But, he not only ignores my post and copies the exact same information, he then goes on to say about how his expertise in Lizzy supercedes mine because he's a moderator and he speaks on "behalf of Dime". Whoopie shit. There's easier ways to agree with someone than belitting someone else's knowledge and touting your credentials.
Secondly, I would think posting a show that claims to be from a date that already has an official release would be something that could cause a legal issue. Granted we know they both aren't the same, but it's not like any lawyer or music label is going to know this. So, it seems like you're taking a risk by letting it remain on the tracker. That's fine and good, and I don't even disagree, it should be on the tracker because it's not the same show. I'm just saying it might lead to confusion, and could lead to legal trouble from those who aren't as informed about such matters. Yet, you seem to be willing to risk it in this case, but not for my case. It almost is like you just seem to pick battles how you see fit, and not whether they make sense or not. The track I posted as a different guitar solo and runs significantly longer than the official release. It's not even remotely close to being the same. Reworked to me means it's way different and should be allowed. Hell, it's more different than a lot of demos that get reworked...but yet those aren't banned. It almost seems like they enjoy picking on me when I upload stuff and overly scrutinzing it just because they don't like me making examples of them to the general public, and pointing out their mistakes and contradictions.
And yes, YOU DO MAKE THEM. Just because you're running DIME doesn't mean you're infallible.
It's that attitude above, and their resistance to apologize and correct mistakes that makes me post private email from them in a blog.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Another download link - By request
ThinLizzyFanpage requested that I post the soundcheck from the 3/12/1983 Hammersmith Odeon gig. I initially said it would take a few days, but I found it on my hard drive and just decided to do it now, while I answered some idiotic comments on a few of my YouTube posts regarding California Jam, Nuremberg 1983, and Sabbath's performance of Smoke on the Water.
I got this from a friend of mine as .mp3 files. I don't know the exact bitrate but the files sound ok. I know people have this in lossless, so if you see this and have it in lossless, it would be appreciated if it could be posted someplace like DIME/DaD or at the Traders Den in that format. That way I could junk this link, and post something in better quality.
This includes 4 versions of Black Rose, 2 of Still In Love With You, Whiskey, The Rocker, Are You Ready, and a couple of jams. It used to have two more tracks but something happened to the CD I had this stored on awhile back and it damaged two tracks so they they were unplayable. This should really be 14 tracks but instead you're only getting 12. Another good reason someone should take the time and post this.
What is here is really good though. It's neat to hear some of the riffs played on their own.
Enjoy!
EDIT: Link removed. Someone met my request and reuploaded lossless version of the afforementioned tracks. I'll try to get a new link put here soon.
I got this from a friend of mine as .mp3 files. I don't know the exact bitrate but the files sound ok. I know people have this in lossless, so if you see this and have it in lossless, it would be appreciated if it could be posted someplace like DIME/DaD or at the Traders Den in that format. That way I could junk this link, and post something in better quality.
This includes 4 versions of Black Rose, 2 of Still In Love With You, Whiskey, The Rocker, Are You Ready, and a couple of jams. It used to have two more tracks but something happened to the CD I had this stored on awhile back and it damaged two tracks so they they were unplayable. This should really be 14 tracks but instead you're only getting 12. Another good reason someone should take the time and post this.
What is here is really good though. It's neat to hear some of the riffs played on their own.
Enjoy!
EDIT: Link removed. Someone met my request and reuploaded lossless version of the afforementioned tracks. I'll try to get a new link put here soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
