View Single Post
  #89  
Old 2010-11-16, 01:28 AM
freezer's Avatar
freezer freezer is offline
TTD VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in your worst nightmare
Re: Can 'audio watermarks' be banned...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five View Post
............

except freezer

Still cheesed off after you found watermarks on the shows I sent you? Cheer up, because you haven't found then all, Five. And since they weren't part of a trade, I just sent them....you should just toss 'em out, you'll feel better.

Nobody wants Rod Stewart and Faces September 25, 1973 in Baton Rouge.












Quote:
Originally Posted by bellham View Post
Seriously, how exactly is this different than your vitriolic rants, which offer nothing but attempts at "ripping a new one" into anyone who offers a fair opinion contrary to your own frozen views. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?
Greg Lake was defending his right to own intellectual property, and all those idiots ripping into him have serious entitlement issues....many of them specifically having entitlement issues about Greg Lake's property.

And in reference to MY comments, YOU along with a LOT of others are not reading for content or comprehension, Mr. Kettle...





RE: "WATERMARKS"

I personally could give a flying fuck about leaving "watermarks" on any recording. This sort of behavior has LONG been part of the high standard of standardness inherent in all collectors.

So what, really.

BAN'em or don't. Who cares.

The recordings I was priviliged to make (that infinitesimal small percentage which are in common circulation) are now "owned by the "community" and the "community" has seen fit embrace bootlegs, specifically when crappy copies were used for source material for bootlegs of those recordings.


Again, so what?

So this: EVERY time a new silver bootleg joins the trade pool, it already has its own watermarks (which is the way it was REMASTERED by the bootleg label).

Sorry, but in reference to my tapes, not one silver boot of any of my recordings has ever done a single fucking iota of good to the sound on the original recording.

Sorry but it ain't happened yet. Not once has one of my recordings been altered and the alteration sound better from a silver bootleg. But that's OK at this site.

BUT some of my concert recordings now circulate with ALL stage announcements removed (Lou Reed 11081974), with wrong information purposefully added to the description (Robert Palmer 111776), some circulate with wrong dates now purposefully added (Moody Blues 1978), incorrect venues (Rolling Stones 060175), gaps between each song (Clapton 1974), set lists altered (Clapton 1976 Baton Rouge), missing songs (Rolling Stones 1975, Led Zeppelin 02281975, Clapton1976), songs from other shows edited in, seeders adding throughly wrong information ON purpose (Stones 1975)........nobody gets upset about that, right?

right.


So why is this watermark different than someone who re-eqs a show that was already poorly eq-ed to begin with? Don't most of you already delete versions you don't like anyway?

Why all the hub-bub, Bub?


What Tooleman did is just a tempest in a teacup..,,,,,,,,
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskg View Post
I don't think I troll anyone, other than freezer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2Lynne View Post
You wall-eyed apple-knocking pig-fuckers! You don't know shit!

Last edited by freezer; 2010-11-16 at 01:34 AM.