Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • downzy

      No More Links to Unofficial or Unlicensed Content :(   11/25/2019

      Hi, Due to numerous DMCA complaints directed towards the hosting provider of this forum, we are no longer allowing any links whatsoever to content this is shared, posted, or distributed by unlicensed or unofficial sources.   It's a sad day and we hate that it comes to this, but thanks to the sad and pathetic efforts of some even sadder and more pathetic individuals, the ability of this forum to remain online requires us to remove any links to content that is produced, shared, or distributed by individuals or sources that do not have a license or authority to post said material.   Discussion, concerns, and questions of this matter can be done so here: We apologize that it has come to this but it's the world we now live in unfortunately.   Thanks for your understanding and cooperation of this matter going forward. Downzy

Propaganda

Members
  • Content count

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Propaganda


  1. I love the 2000 version of Silkworms, but I like the acappela better on the 06 version cause it's equal to the Rock in Rio version. The rest of the 06 version is pretty weak and repetitive though.

    So ideally I think we still didn't get the best version of Silkworms, I think that should be around 2001 or 2002 version (The Rock in Rio version).

    On the 2000 version the main guitars on the chorus are gone and there is no (what can I do... with a bitch like you), unless that chorus only existed on the live version, kinda like what he does with Double Talkin' Jive (the home fuck part).

     


  2. 9 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

    So I just did some math that I wanted to share here:

    Both Slash and Matt say in their books that 36 songs were recorded for UYI. Out of the 30 that made it onto the final albums, this does NOT include Civil War (cause that was recorded before for Nobody’s Child), KOHD (cause that was recorded before for Days of Thunder), Don’t Cry Alt (cause that’s just the same music as the original version), or My World (cause Axl did that one all on his own without the rest of the band even knowing about it).

    So that leaves us with 26 songs. So what were the other 10? Well, we know Ain’t Goin Down and six songs from TSI were all recorded here too (with Gilby later replacing all of Izzy’s parts). So that brings our total up to 33... So that means there are 3 other songs from the UYI sessions that we don’t know about.

    Any guesses as to what those 3 are? Hopefully they all show up on the boxset!

    Crash Diet, Just Another Sunday and another song. I'm guessing


  3. 2 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

    Yeah there’s a lot more professionally-recorded audio and video from the UYI era than there is from the AFD era. Also, unlike the AFD stuff, the band actually OWNS most of the vault stuff from the UYI time period.

    For more AFD stuff, they would’ve had to work with Canter (who they don’t get along with right now for whatever reason), or any channel that professionally filmed them at the time like mtv, Fox, etc. They don’t really have that excuse this time around, so hopefully that means we’ll get more shit this time!

    And don’t get me wrong, the AFD boxset was pretty decent, given the circumstances mentioned above. I just hope they take this opportunity to make something even better now, is all.

    They either pull off a lazy effort, with just the remastered illusion albums, 1 cd of demos, unreleased and released, making the fuckin videos and some rings and gimmicks.

    Or they pull out all the stops and give us like 3 cds of unreleased, alternate mixes and demos, the cd remasters, some live shows or live tracks, documentary from that time, Blu ray of the remaster, making the fuckin videos (which honestly I would pass), and maybe a physical tape or two.

    I'm inclined to think that this boxset will be more appealing than the Appetite box, because now they will have better feedback from the fans. So i'm confident we'll get something good.

    • Like 2

  4. 1 hour ago, ToonGuns said:

    If it is full of pointless trinkets marketed in a way that makes you think you cannot live without it then it'll be "Useless Illusions".

    You'll probably get the trinkets...Rings posters, pics, key chains and what not, but it will have the good stuff too. I'm confident that this will be cool! I think we'll get some demos and all the good stuff we want.


  5. I thought about some names for the boxset:

    - "Wall of Illusions"
    - "Garden of Illusions"
    - "A Box of Illusions"
    - "The Illusions Incident"
    - "Loaded Illusions"
    - "Dead!"
    - "The end of an era" box
    - "Look at your Illusions"
    - "Failure to communicate"
     

    I'm sure they will come up with better ones though. Mine sound more like bootleg titles lol


  6. On 17/06/2020 at 12:28 PM, Blackstar said:

    He discussed it at the forum chats in 2008, like @alfierose said. Not much about the details can be made out of his answers though, because he sent a long text that was compiled of his answers to various questions asked by fans without quoting the questions (that happened because he had entered the forum the previous day wanting to discuss only that subject, but some fans kept asking irrelevant questions so he was pissed off and left, and then sent his answers without the questions) and the result was that the text wasn't very coherent - plus his writing style makes it more difficult. But it's clear that he vehemently denied that he made Slash and Duff sign it under duress before a show, and said that Slash's various claims (Slash has given contradictory versions over the years) about it were lies. He also said that the thought of wanting the rights to the name signed over to him came to him because Alan Niven had suggested to the rest of the band that they should fire him (or tried to get him fired), which would take it (as an idea) as back as early 1988.

    As far as I've researched, two copies of that document (partnership agreement) "leaked" (it's probably discussed in @Lio's links, too). One was a copy of the full document, which was presumably an exhibit in Slash and Duff's lawsuit in 2004 and can be found here (images of the pages and transcript):

    https://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

    And the other was only the page with the name clause and the last page with the dates and signatures. The respective pages of the two documents are almost identical (the content and dates are the same - there are only slight differences in the spot where the members' initials were placed).

    The name clause was clearly an amendment/modification in the existing document, as it was typed over as an asterisk at the bottom of the page. So it couldn't have been added earlier. It either was added at the time the document was signed, which was in October 1992 when the band was on a tour break, or at an unknown later time on the already signed document. 

    MRCxCgki_o.jpg

    As you can see in the image and in the link with the transcript, the initial clause said that if any of the partners became "terminated" (i.e. if they quit or were expelled), they wouldn't have any rights to the band name. The asterisk at the bottom added the exception for Axl (i.e. if Axl quit, or was expelled, or Slash and Duff quit the partnership, he could maintain the rights to the name).

    Slash gave different versions about the circumstances over the years. It should be noted that there were two different events related to that whole story: one was in 1992 the earliest, when the above document that granted Axl the right to keep the name if the band broke up was signed; the other was when Axl used that clause in 1995.

    At first Slash said that he hadn't realised what he had signed in 1992 and that it was the attorneys' fault:

    Slash: As far as contractually - and this is a discrepancy between myself and our attorneys - apparently Axl owns it. Now I should have known that, because I could have then said: "Okay." I don't give a fuck who owns the name. But I find out later that Axl legally owns it - apparently. [Metal Hammer, November 1995]

    Slash: That's something that happened. I was blindsided by it, more or less a legal faux pas. I don't know what he's gonna do, as far as that goes. But I'd be lying to say I wasn't a little bit peeved at that. It'd be one thing if I quit altogether. But I haven't, and the fact that he can actually go and do that without the consent of the other members of the band... [Addicted to Noise, January 30, 1997]

    Later he would say that when he and Duff realised it (which was probably in 1994, as it was then that there was the first mention in the press about Axl owning the rights) they just let Axl have it:

    Slash: When Duff and I quit, it was a question as who wants to deal with the name. And me and Duff were like, “We don’t want it. What are we gonna do with it?” you know? (chuckles) And Axl chose to keep the name and go on, and promote it as such, so... [Musikbyrån SVT, December 9, 2000]

    Then he would say, seemingly about signing the original agreement, that he and Duff had signed over because they wouldn't want the name if the band broke up:

    Slash: We had a revised contract stating that if the band breaks up, Axl could keep the name. Izzy and Steve were already gone, so Duff and I said, "Yeah, go ahead - we don't want it. If Guns n' Roses breaks up, what are we gonna do with the name?" [Classic Rock Revisited, July 2001]

    But a little later, he said that he and Duff might contest it, and he was looking for a legal loophole to do that:

    Slash: And what happened was, the guys in the band said, “If we’re not in the band, what do we need the name Guns N’ Roses for?” And so we very easily said, “Yeah, Axl, take the name. Anything, let’s just get out of our hair,” okay? […] But he chose to do it and we allowed him to do it, which at this point I think it’s come up a few times where we might contest that, because it doesn’t seem... […] People are walking around with new Guns N’ Roses jackets not knowing what Guns N’ Roses is (laughs). [The Howard Stern Show, September 7, 2001]

    Slash: That's actually a topic which we're trying to get to the bottom of. Originally, the other guys in the band gave it up. Now that I know a little bit more about this stuff, I'm trying to look for a loophole [to get some control back].  [Chart Attack, September 12, 2001]

    And then, in 2002, he changed the stories he had told before (that he didn't know what he had signed in 1992 or that he had agreed to it) and said that Axl had blackmailed them before a show:

    Slash: Before a gig one night in ’92, [Axl] hands us a contract saying that if the band breaks up, he’s taking the name. Unfortunately, we signed it. I didn’t think he’d go on stage otherwise. [Entertainment Weekly, November 2002]

    Slash continued telling the blackmail/under duress story in 2003. Then Duff said that it happened at the show in Barcelona in 1993, and that it was Doug Goldstein and John Reese (tour manager) who had blackmailed him and Slash on behalf of Axl (Goldstein had being denying it saying that he wasn't even in Barcelona when it supposedly happened, then in Mick Wall's book he said he was there, then he again said that he wasn't there).

    Curiously enough, Slash didn't write anything in his book about the circumstances under which the privilege to keep the rights was signed over to Axl and jumped straight to 1995. Maybe he just didn't remember, so he chose not to say anything, knowing that it was a very sore point for Axl and not wanting to piss him off too much (but he didn't avoid that, lol).

    Also oddly, Steven talked about the issue, too, and claimed that Axl had approached all the members and offered them money to buy the name (it should also be noted here that the reports in the press after Slash left were that Axl had "bought" the rights to the name, which, if true, would mean that Slash and Duff were compensated). Steven's claim could give credit to what Axl said, i.e that he was thinking about it in 1988 already. But Steven said that he was approached after he was out of the band, which doesn't make sense at all, as Steven wasn't a partner anymore then so he wouldn't have any rights to the name to sell. 

    Steven: [Axl] went by person-by-person [trying to buy the name]. First I was out of the band, and I said, "I am not in the band, go ahead, give me some money." […] "Show me the money, you got it." "Show me the money, you got anything." [The Howard Stern Show, January 22, 1997]

    So either Steven made it up or there was truth in what he said,  but it happened at an earlier time than he said.

    ------------

    In my opinion, Axl obviously wanted the rights to the name, and probably insisted on it and put some pressure, but I doubt the story of the blackmail before a show happened. I think Slash and Duff, in the state they were at the time, agreed to sign it over not thinking it might have any serious repercussions (and according to Tom Zutaut, the label and the lawyers themselves who drew up that contract didn't believe it would have serious repercussions either). But I wasn't there, of course, so who knows.

    Thanks for clarifying with further proof!

    It seems that they didn't care much about it, because they didn't believe Axl would do something with it in the future without them being in the band, but then Axl found these new guys and started promoting a possible new album (CD) and before that "Oh My God", and suddenly they were like... "Oh Fuck! He's really gonna do it!"


  7. 1 hour ago, alfierose said:

    I think it might have been brought up in the Axl Chats

    http://www.mygnrforum.com/forum/190-axl-rose-chats-amp-open-letters/

    There's also this thread where it's discussed with Marc Canter

    Several years back I think someone paid for a copy of the legal documentation thus disproving that the signing took place whilst the band were on tour as was previously claimed by Slash (and maybe Duff). Now this doesn't discount completely the notion that threats were levied against going on stage but the whole we had to sign over the name there and then before Axl would perform appear not to be true.

    We must have an old thread on this when it happened but I can't find it (probably not using right keywords).

    My memory is a bit hazy so if anyone wants to correct any of that go ahead but that's roughly what I remember from the documents that were gained.

    I don't wanna say who's right or wrong, and Slash and Duff were definitely on some heavy drink and drug use, but who's to say that there wasn't a previous agreement signed during the tour, and then another one confirming the previous one when the tour had already ended. Sometimes things like that happen. Doesn't mean it's the case here of course.

    • Like 1

  8. Although it would be logic to include one live show on that boxset, I have no desire or curiosity in any live shows. We got so many of that era, and they're all basically the same. They're all over the internet, when I wanna watch them. Usually I only watch Paris 92 or Chicago 92, or RIO and I'm good.

    I would like to hear all of the demos, the different mixes, the unreleased songs, a book documenting the whole thing. Including some of the recording tapes would also be very cool, but don't cut on the cds to offer that. Forget all of the rings, pins and shit like that, nobody uses that and they will probably be stuck in a box forever in someones basement...It has no value.

    Include about 6 cds with unreleased UYI songs, demos, different mixes, Spaghetti demos and some unseen footage of the band recording the albums in the studio or if that's too personal, maybe the band talking about the records, explaining the meaning of the songs, telling stories, and I'll be very happy to give you my money.


  9. 24 minutes ago, Euchre said:

    How about instead of going bigger and for more, go the other way and release something smaller....like make 1 really good CD out  of UYI ? I’m sure no one has thought of that before.

    Seriously though, I’m not really a UYI fan, in fact there are aspects I really dislike, so mine will come from left field. To me it was a bad time for the band, most of the material was written with Adler, pre Dizzy/Matt and then when it was recorded it seemed quite dysfunctional with obviously Adler missing aside from Civil War, Izzy missing at times and as a result Slash’s influence growing on the guitar side and Axl’s influence over shadowing overall, so the balance the original band had was completely fucked. Then there are songs that come across more as solo tunes than band efforts. So coming from a point of loving Appetite and Lies and seeing the potential for UYI to really be part of that era before things got fucked up, well with a box set I’d try and make things right....hence

    1) You can’t deny the era happened so some sort of remaster of the original 2 albums

    2) Have the 4 “musicians” pick their top 12 rockers (ie Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steve), no covers, have Steve re do the drums, Izzy record where he is missing, strip them back to raw, cut the piano to only the tunes where it really adds something, perhaps rename this album, definitely new cover art.

    3) Axl takes his 4 ballads and Does whatever he wants to do to modernise and the becomes the ballad EP

    4) Do whatever they want to do with the rest of the tracks on another CD

    5) Given 2 still won’t be real in that part of what made Appetite feel so right was the tempo shifts, put together whatever demos or rehearsals of the original band doing theses songs

    6) Beyond that do whatever, it’s already long enough and I’m bored

     

    With Axl in charge, if you were gonna make a cd compilation of the UYI albums, you would get the Live and let dies, the November rains, the Don't crys, the estrangeds and you still wouldn't be satisfied, because most of the rockers would be out...

    • Like 1

  10. Make it about content! Forget the pins, the stickers, the shirts and all that bullshit.

    Here's what I would like to see in it:

    - The raw demos that Slash has been talking about for years without Axl's piano parts.

    - All the unreleased songs (that's an obvious one I guess).

    - Any alternate mixes from the songs.

    - Don't leave out You Could Be Mine!

    - Maybe include some of Slash's demos from 1995 (back and forth again, new stuff)

    - Remaster both albums.


  11. Dunno if you guys know but the first track "Mr. X" of the new Cherie Curry's album, is one of the demos from Velvet Revolver, from when they were searching for a new singer. The instrumental track I mean. 

     

    To be honest, I liked the auditioned singer's version much more:

     

    • Thanks 1

  12. My favorite sequel post T2 was Salvation. I really saw the Character Marcus Wright as being a good replacement for Arnold, and I liked to see Christian Bale as John Connor. I think the movie wasn't successful because it lacked of Arnold scenes, but I really liked the part where you see a CGI Arnold fighting John Connor.

    The only thing I liked about Genesys was the reboot parts from Terminator, and the time machine part at the beginning. I didn't like to see John Connor as the bad guy, even though they explained what happened, and the guy who played Kyle Reese did an awful job.

    Dark Fate has a great start, very heavy with Sarah's disturbing testimonials of Judgement Day, and the death of John Connor. That was the highlight of the movie for me. From there on I think the movie lacks of the heaviness you see on the first movie, T1. Especially, in the war scenes. Also, there's parts where they could have put more dialog. Like that part where Dani convinces her uncle to help to get them across the border. It didn't take long to convince him, it was weird!

    I'm hoping they release an extended version of the movie on Bluray, like they did with T2, so there's more detail in those kind of parts. Overall I thought the movie was very strong. Could do without the Carl part, and just having Arnold instead of Grace, but ok....I hate those comedy parts to be honest. They're extremely exaggerated. I really liked the movie though, the action scenes are solid, the bad guy was a good choice, the new tricks are cool. I've watched in 4D which is a great experience as well. It was great! 

    The film just lacks a bit of heaviness I think. Like Terminator 1 was almost like a B horror movie. It had really scary believable parts. Like the one where he rips the punk kid's heart in the beginning. It was really dark at moments. I think that element is missing in the new movies. And I know that we live in a different world now, and that they make less money if they make a Rated R movie, but it would have made the movie better.

    I still think Salvation was the way to go. That direction was good and they introduced a really interesting new character that they killed in the movie itself to save John Connor. They should have continued that story and maybe have Marcus comeback again, since he seemed like the new line of Terminators, as a bad guy terminator instead. And then you could have had Arnold making a cameo.


  13. 1 hour ago, D.. said:

    Just wanted to share a few thoughts with you, and with Axl, if he still reads boards. I appreciate this forum & most of you here, great discussions have happened there, and Russ is doing a great job at handling things.

    That being said, my history post speaks for itself: I've mainly been an Axl supporter, hardcore supporter I might say. The following is just my opinion, of course.

    I had big doubts about the reunion and didn't feel right about it, because to me it meant no CD II happening, and basically ignoring a lot of what went down during that CD Era, what Axl had to say on Slash, and doing a complete 180. But then again, that was just my opinion, and it's great that the guys made peace. That sends a good message to humanity. But I wasn't wrong in my predictions and I hate to be right on those things. Nothing happened in almost 4 years except the same shows, mediocre Axl vocals, and absolutely no new material.

     

    Now, with all those leaks from the CD Vault, and since we're almost done with the 20 CD locker saga... It gives a completely new insight of what really down.

    Does anyone recall when Axl said, in a 1999 interview with Kurt Loder: "We've been working on... I don't know... 70 songs?"

    Many here speculated Axl didn't have much going on in the vault and this was bullshit. 

     

    Well truth is, it was half bullshit. It wasn't 70 "songs". It was maybe 70 instrumentals, with a third tops having vocals. The band sure was productive as far as musicians go.

    As for the band singer? What a joke.

    When State of Grace, Hard School, Perhaps and Atlas Shrugged leaked, I actually told myself "hey, I knew it, Axl had been working hard on this stuff, he had saved stuff!"

    Then the rest dropped, little by little. All those great instrumentals, most feeling finished. That "Me & Elvis" fucking masterpiece. And no single vocals on them. Nothing. He sure knew how to pick the right musicians and expected the best from them, but as for himself? Wasn't expecting the best from himself. At all.

    One can just admire what the band had to offer, the variety of genres they explored, their creativity, their commitment to the mission. And why so many eventually quit. Those guys (Tobias, Finck, Buckethead & the others) were productive and talented as hell. They sure were superior to the original line-up with Slash & Izzy for one thing at least: they knew how to explore a wide variety of styles, not just old school hard rock (not even going to talk technically).

     

    As for Axl? He didn't work nearly as much as the other guys from the band, nor as he led us to believe. You have to take two things in consideration here:

    1) His vocal takes are untouched (except very minor changes on the blues ending for example) from 1999-2001 to 2008. That tells a lot. On the other hand, the band recorded variants, there were loads of takes, redoing everything, many musicians covering other musicians parts, hell's work.

    2) He sings on a third of the instrumentals. 

    Now, one could argue his vocal takes were perfect to begin with. That was what I thought originally, because on most of CD 2008, he sounds great. I've always loved his different vocal approach. But then, when you listen to "Eye on You", "State of Grace" or "Perhaps": do those sound like definitive vocals? To me it doesn't. It feels half assed. Doesn't feel complete. And I could argue that now that I think of it, he should have redone vocals for CD 2008. The band did go through the trouble. Why not Axl?

    One could also argue he picked his favorite tracks to sing on. I sure can't buy into that now. How the fuck did he think Silkworms and Rhiad were better picks than "Me & Elvis", "Zodiac", "Quick Song", "Oklahoma", and so many other instrumentals of great quality? It just blows my mind.

     

    With that taken in consideration, when Axl offered the song to that Bob Ezrin guy and was told he only had 3 good songs tops and sure could do better... Now that we've heard all of that, I think Ezrin wasn't the fuckhead we made him to be after all.

     

    Put yourself in a producer's shoes for a sec. You're given songs from the Rough CD 1 mix. Honestly, fanboy aside, how many A-list songs are there on there, objectively? 3 tops. TWAT didn't sound as good as the definitive 2008 version. As for some songs on there like Prostitue, was it ever going to be a hit really? No.

    Not even sure one could consider any as real A-list song (beside The Blues) that would have been a guaranteed hit back then without Slash to sell it alongside Axl.

    Now, regarding what was in the vault instrumentally, just imagine if Axl had laid vocals on all of them, and had worked his ass off on every vocal take to make it sound perfect & polished. How is State of Grace this half assed? Axl sure could do a lot better back then if you just take Street of Dreams for example. 

    If he DID have so many full songs completed, how many songs would have Bob Ezrin judged worth? Surely more than 3. How in the hell could a producer accept garbage like Silkworms & Rhiad when there were crazy potential like Soul Monster? And how in hell would a producer think it could work when branded "Guns N' Roses". You had OKLAHOMA AXL! OKLAHOMA! Now that would have worked! GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!

     

    This whole thing just blows my mind. To think Axl had this band working for him non stop coming with so many instrumental gems, some of which were totally in the vibe of Use Your Illusion and some taking it to the next level (and not some idiotic electro BS which made no sense either for this band or coherence with the band's legacy). And what did he do with that? Close to nothing.

     

    Was he really that sensitive when he was turned down by Universal? Come on man. Axl the legend who rants about everything was hurt because Silkworms & Rhiad suck when you have goddamn gems to work on in the vault? WORK YOUR ASS OFF!!!! It's not like there was nothing and the musicians were incompetent. 

     

    I also thought Axl chose poor songs like Rhiad, If The World and Scraped to save some of his best for CD II. I originally thought there was not much going on that the CD 2008 songs and some other songs like The General & stuff that he would save for a follow up. I was cool with that. Why not since apparently, the production was hell.

     

    But really, just from 1999 to 2001, he had soooo many options to choose beside those 3. Thing is, he most probably never bothered recording for all of them. Maybe Soul Monster, Zodiac, Seven & Oklahoma. As for the rest, I'm pretty sure he never gave Devious Bastard a chance, never completed Quick Song, and so on. I wouldn't call those tracks genius either, but sure far better picks than what we got on CD 2008.

    Instead, they went on overproducing shits like Rhiad for almost a decade. They butchered songs that were already impeccable to begin with and only needed a proper master like The Blues, Catcher & others. Why not just give the other instrumental a proper vocal take while NOT adding stupid layers and replacing perfect musician's work like Brian May's, and then turn everything to Universal. Imagine how things would have turned differently.

     

    Now if you couple that with whatever Axl has been doing since 2011, and especially from 2016 til now (except the glorious AC/DC tour), I think it's safe to conclude Axl has been lazy as hell, has completely failed himself, has not seen the potential that was there, was not objective about his own self, has given up on things a long time ago, and that most of what went down is on him.

    His own goddamn fault. Not Ezrin. Not bandmembers who quit. Not "I don't know what oh god life is so hard". Fuck that shit.

     

    How can you show up this untrained to a gig like last saturday? What went down when he showed up for Rock in Rio 2011? How can you have so many goddamn instrumentals with potential and do NOTHING with them for years while the rest of your band sacrifice everything?

     

    I find this situation absurd. And the management at no point said "hey, why not make a boxset with all this vault, it will sure please the ones who supported CD & the 2002/2006/2007/2009/2010/2011/2012/2013/2014 tours for all this time". They had all the time in the world to do it. They didn't.

     

    And Axl? Zero communication. All efforts spared. No vocals on most instrumental in 2001. Unacceptable.

     

    Bottomline is: Axl fucked it up, alone. It's fucking crazy. He had it all and sat on it, crying about whatever. Dammit.

    D, don't get me wrong here. I realize the frustration on not having much releases since the 90's (we only had CD in 2008, with new material), but i think you're assumption is very wrong, and let me explain why.

    This locker saga thing... most of these recordings are from 1999,2000,2001.  So you're basically basing your assumption on two years of work. This 20 cds is what Axl worked with the band for those two years, and we don't know if there is more out there. I'm sure there is. I'm sure more executives other than Zutaut had copies of these, and who knows even more.

    Then you have the work that was done post 2000... 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 etc etc etc up until CD was released...which most of it, we don't have access to for obvious reasons.

×