Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And certainly this one although it went for $133 US:
http://www.popsike.com/Smashing-Pumpkin … 33084.html[/quote:1f4gruvo]
yeah, this can’t be real: jimmy wasn’t in the band in november ’96.i personally don’t really care about autographs. especially if you buy them. what’s the point of that? if i ever met them, and they would sign something, then yeah, ok, maybe. but buying an autograph someone else received? no, thanks.
i also dislike people who go to concerts and whatnot, just to get stuff signed, with the intention to sell them on ebay. they are worthless people.
i might be wrong here, but to me, this looks like someone had the original autographs in front of him, and tried to reproduce them.
you need to see a lot of signed stuff. this way you get used to the autographs, and it becomes really easy to spot the fakes.
it’s always possible that someone does a great job faking the autographs, but usually, the fakers just invent one, and throw their item up on ebay, together with a \"certificate of authenticity\" they printed out.
The one you posted looks real. I can’t really see the BC autograph, but the JC and JI autographs look familiar.
Yeah. I wonder when and where this was recorded, so we can check out the previous song, or the banter before this one. D’Arcy really looks agitated!
And I can’t recall Billy ever "grunting" in a performance of X.Y.U. like he does here. And also, rubbing his guitar on a speaker… Truly epic performance of X.Y.U. anyway, I thought I just had to share this with you guys.[/quote:2zhh2vie]
oh, this is a well known show and video: http://www.splra.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tsp1996-01-26basically, before x.y.u., d’arcy addresses the crowd and says that the band regrets it that the only way they could play in brazil was with the help of a tobacco company (who sponsored the festival, or something).
then billy says "i would like to thank the tobacco company for the free footballs" and that pisses off d’arcy, obviously.audio: http://www.rspaa.org/rspaa/Live/1996-01 … eiro%20BR/
(apparently this show is often listed as 1996-01-27…)i like it how he goes all south-american heavy metal at the end.
you have to see what happens before to understand why d’arcy angrily kicks over her mic and why billy is smiling.
also, why would ugly, believe and cherry be listed as \"german b-sides\"?
looks like the creator of this compilation didn’t really know what he was doing, and just grabbed whatever he could find. one of those things must be a european 1979 single that was imported from germany.
i also see some non-us tonight, tonight b-sides on the compilation, but here no origin is mentioned. seems random to me.i fear this only indicates that the band had very little to do with this compilation, and that the live tracks didn’t come from them either.
I had never heard of Jeff McClusky & Associates so far, but they do exist. They are even based in Chicago! I have send them an email asking for more info about this and possible other Smashing Pumpkins releases. Keep you posted!
[/quote:1q81xjw1]
Aha, smart move, Arthur.I also saw this on eBay, and was interested, even though it looks a bit dodgy. Who calls his own compilation "unofficial"??? I looked up McClusky and found out this company exists indeed, but of course that doesn’t prove anything. I’m interested in what they might answer.
I don’t think the live tracks will be anything special. I think they’ll be from recordings that are already out there, and maybe even sourced from bootlegs. I might be wrong of course. In that case this is indeed a very interesting compilation.
The confusion about the San Diego date is probably similar to the confusion on the bootleg "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Ga Ga Goo Goo" ([url:1q81xjw1]http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/boot.html?boot_id=147[/url:1q81xjw1] – http://www.spfreaks.com/default.aspx?pa … &item=1342). The first songs are listed as 2-7 San Diego, but are from 1-31 San Diego. (There is no 2-7 San Diego. And on 2-7, they didn’t play Rhinoceros.)
If you can make mp3s of the "San Diego" tracks once you received the cd, I wouldn’t mind comparing them to some bootlegs to see what show they are from.Anyway, I forgot to bid. Ha. (And I also forgot to bid on a sealed GLOW promo, and it went for $70.
)hot pink = darker pink, right?
i’m not sure about the pressings. i got most copies second hand, so i can’t always put an original release date next to a copy.
i do know that i bought the peach one (lightest orange one) more than five but less than ten years ago, sealed, in a record store. this record store keeps ordering new siamese dreams from the factory or an official european provider, so i assume the peach one was the latest pressing at that time. i bought another sealed one from the same place two or three years ago, and it contained a black vinyl (= latest re-issue on caroline).
i’m a bit confused by the term \"pressing\". if you say the first pressing was on purple vinyl, does that mean that everyone who bought a siamese dream vinyl when it came out got one on purple vinyl? how many copies do you think were made on purple vinyl then? must be thousands.
or is it possible they made a limited amount on purple vinyl, for example, and then a lot more on orange, and these were all made available at the time of the release? would the combination of both colours be considered the first pressing then?I’d call these 1 pink, 2 peach, 3 maroon/purple.[/quote:hkvhnv4k]
I can see why one would call these pink, peach and maroon/purple.But I think it creates a lot of confusion. Let’s take that "pink" one. Surely, if you own this, and you’d have to describe the colour, you’d say pink. But then if someone says to me "I have a pink Siamese Dream", I’ll think about a different colour: the really light pink one.
Your "pink" one seems to belong to that "red" family. (See my first post.)
Maroon/purple: I think right here there’s another point of confusion. What is maroon? What is purple? Apparently maroon can mean quite a range of colours. I personally thought maroon is red-brown (like the labels on the vinyl), but that doesn’t mean this is the one and only correct definition.
Look at honeymade’s copy, for example: I’d call one of those two vinyls maroon. And I think it looks very different from the purple vinyl.Your "peach" copy: not sure if this is the same as my peach one (and the peach one of mr. benway), or if it’s closer to my orange copy that has some white and red mixed in. The picture isn’t clear enough.
Once again, maybe people think of a different colour when they hear "peach". (I think of the colour of the Rocket 7", which has always been called peach. Right?)I think it would be interesting to agree on a way to name the SD vinyl colours.
For example, when we discuss the different pressings, it would be nice if we could all be thinking of the same colours if someone mentions peach or pink.
Do you guys agree, or do you think this is a bit over the top/not care at all?i don’t have the equipment to make a decent transfer of those tapes. but i’d also be interested in the audio to check what exactly is on the tapes.
with all due respect!!!!
a GENUINE Town House CDR normally WOULD -INDEED!!!!!- justify it to be one-off or at least one of a very very very very small amount of copies—
as TH produces the ‘masters’ and these ‘just’ have to be checked and ok-d and then sent on to be mass-produced…I am NOT saying this ONE is NO totally genuine TH-cd master copy for reference….
however:
your copy bears the infamous "APPEARING’ sticker on the front—-
as such this very copy at least was issued as a PROMOTIONAL copy… hence the sticker…
now-
let’s say-
– for a vinyl TH normally kinda makes like 1 to 5 copies to check for label, management and artist; this seems kinda like OK, doesn’t it- I mean: this is kinda the VERY least you’d make for a major release before production starts full scale—
– for a cd TH normally kinda follows the same path as these too have to be checked—-now-
that’s just for the TRUE ‘check’ copies of the ‘master’-
now-
what’s this then?
a- a ‘master’ copy which was promotionally used?
b- a promotional cd made by TH as it had to be done quickly and such and thus they made a couple of copies to be distributed to the press or radio or something?at the very least I would suspect this one at least is not a one-off—
i might be wrong, but these were just my two cents—-
cheers,
svenps-
anyone can put down the ‘1 of 1’ right?
i mean if that’s the case… why write it down in the first place? and why then promotionally use this?
just some questions-
i’m just curious as to the provenance and more-
it DOES look cool and still it’s a VERY cool item!!![/quote:8ob91p1a]
well, it does say "for marc goodier". isn’t he some radio guy?
this cd doesn’t say it’s the master, does it?
wouldn’t it be ok to conclude that this is a (unique) promo cd? maybe issued by the town house, because this marc goodier guy was supposed to get it earlier than anyone else?you can see through some of my vinyls too. as i put them on the inner sleeve, i could see the hole of the inner sleeve through the vinyl.
I don’t know but THIS one looks kinda’ red to me:
http://www.popsike.com/Smashing-Pumpkin … 32056.html
[/quote:2xu8zud2]
clearly: purple and peach.
and then your \"pink\" one seems to be far away from my pink copies, but quite close to the red ones. for that reason, i wouldn’t call it pink.
the red vinyls we’ve seen so far seem to vary from maroon, over red, to some sort of pinkish red. not sure how to call these; seems that red isn’t that appropriate after all.
I just won this by the way:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi … 0370124333
What do you guys and guysesses think about the price on this one? Pretty OK?[/quote:2t2ulp7q]
I think you paid too much.I don’t think someone got them mixed up. Just look at my two red copies. Each set has a lighter and a darker vinyl. I think basically they’re the same colour, but one of the two has more white mixed in.
I also believe your maroon set is very close to my red copies. It’s just a bit more convincing to call your copy maroon. But it adds to the idea that what I considered \"red\", is what everyone has been calling maroon so far. I mean, it’s not that far of a stretch to call my darker red copies maroon. I guess it’s just the lighter, more pinkish vinyl that makes it all confusing.
I have two pink ones, and they both look the same: very pink.
I’m interested to see how your red (pink?) copy looks like.
Hey… look what I found
http://www.blamonet.com/vb/showpost.php … stcount=67
Leak of Zwan@Hideout… Nice version of Lyric!!![/quote:2x46usl1]Thanks milan!
Is this a version from the Hideout compilations or a different one?
Uhhh, and i can’t find my Hideout-compilations… mhhhh…
[/quote:2x46usl1]
i don’t think the hideout compilations contain lyric.and arthur, $145 for the mellon collie tape, $40 for the moniter mixes. and $70 for the moon cassette audio. i think i may have overpaid a bit.[/quote:dwa7u6w2]
I don’t think you overpaid. These are (most likely) really amazing items.
The description of the seller is a bit weird though. I can’t really judge if the Moon tape contains anything that isn’t out there yet, for example. And it’s also hard to judge if any of the other tapes contain unheard stuff from those descriptions.The acoustic live show looks a lot like the Black Session indeed, but is the tracklist accurate? I didn’t think Crush was played, for example. And is this a recording without a dj talking over some parts? If so, that would be something we haven’t heard yet.
Also, the MCIS tape, does everything sound like on the album, but with the vocals turned up, or is it an alternate version, with early takes of some vocals, and maybe even an extra solo, a bit like Sequence IV, from May ’95?
Some links:
Moon: http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/disc … iscog_id=2
http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/boot.html?boot_id=34 (link to bootleg with more about the Spanish spoken parts)
Black Session: http://www.splra.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tsp1993-06-29
Sequence IV: http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/boot … oot_id=189
