(#2002-3110) - Topics this issue: 1) About Remakes & Discussing the new Robin album, 2) Robin, 3) Robin, 4) CENSORSHIP ON THIS MAILING LIST!, 5) Digest (10/07/2002 06:01) (#2002-3109), 6) Maurice knows what he's talking about !, 7) List CENSORSHIP and other Bee Gees Clubs, 8) Robin, 9) CENSORSHIP ON THIS MAILING LIST!, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:36:08 +0200 From: Juan Perea y Monsuwe Subject: About Remakes & Discussing the new Robin album > >Isn't it a bit presumptious to know you'll disllike the album before it even >comes out?? Give it chance!! If you don't like it when it does come out, >then by all means say it then that you don't like it. >Christine >If People Don't Want To Buy Robin New Solo Album When It Comes Out Don't >Buy It Then & Stop Complaining It Gets Very Annoying. > > From Kirsten I don't know if you read my post the way I intended it to be. I for instance, said I'd certainly buy the album, no matter what. I just stressed that if the remakes Robin is planning on his new album are anything like his version of Islands in The Stream on the Record, i'll most certainly dislike them, because I found that particular remake one of the more boring and uninspired pieces of music he has ever done. I just don't see how he could gain anything from redoing songs which are fine as they are, with merits of their own. Maybe he wants to have a hit with a more contemporary version of Another Lonely Night In New York. He said before he liked the atmosphere of this song, one of his favourites, so... why do it again? The history of Bee Gees recycling themselves only shows a list of failed attempts. Apart from I Can Bring Love, the remake has always been worse than the original. Maybe In the Morning and Morning of My Life is a close tie, but You Should be Dancing beats Decadance, and the clinical Emotion on The Record cannot meet the musical standard of the Samantha Sang original. Although it's a fair version, the Heartbreaker on the Record isn't anything like the haunting original demo from 1982. And I already made my point about Islands In the Stream. One of the important things I always liked about the Bee Gees, was their reluctance to recycle themselves, always take new musical roads, without reissuing old hits. Now Robin seems to be keen to rewrite musical history, with a new Europop drumbeat. Yet looking at the impressive collection of songs that didn't make the Bee Gees album cut throughout the years, it'd maybe a more challenging idea to dig up some treasures there, and give them a well deserved place on an official release. Of course this is all speculation without having heard a sound yet. But don't forget then, at this point, the album can still go any side. If we'd have to keep quiet and only be political correct all the time and only once every 2 years discuss whether you like an album or not after it has been released on the market, it would be quite boring... -- Juan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:40:10 GMT+01:00 From: robin-alexis@talk21.com Subject: Robin On a lighter note: I understand that Robin's new album is provisionally titled "Robin". Via the list, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Robin for thinking of naming the album after me. Kilburn Towers (aka Robin Setty) Order copies of Ordinary People, the new Bee Gees tribute album with a difference: www.tophatevents.co.uk/tribute.html -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:40:02 GMT+01:00 From: robin-alexis@talk21.com Subject: Robin On a lighter note: I understand that Robin's new album is provisionally titled "Robin". Via the list, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Robin for thinking of naming the album after me. Kilburn Towers (aka Robin Setty) Order copies of Ordinary People, the new Bee Gees tribute album with a difference: www.tophatevents.co.uk/tribute.html -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:34:30 EDT From: Laughinchild@aol.com Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP ON THIS MAILING LIST! --part1_63.13026de8.2ad2d956_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en bwichmann33@hotmail.com writes: > Aren=E2=80=99t we all fans of The Bee Gees and haven=E2=80=99t we all the=20= right to know the=20 >=20 > latest details when they are available for all the clubs and web sites?? Babette, Yes, we are all fans of the Bee Gees. Yes, we have the right to know the=20 latest details WHEN they are available for all clubs....but you are missing=20 the points. =20 1. The information was COPIED word for word from the site where there is an=20 explict warning not to do so. That is plagiarism (stealing, if you will) in= =20 its simplest form. The person who wanted to share this news, should have=20 stated it in their own words, instead of copying it without permission from=20 the BGQ staff. 2. The information was printed in a section called Members Only...which=20 means it is intended for persons who have PAID their dues to access that=20 section. ALL fan club websites have such "private" sctions and all expect=20 the information to NOT be forwarded verbatim from there. This is industry=20 standards for fanclub website. You can check out Elton John, Areosmith,=20 Rolling Stones' websites, if you don't believe it. =20 3. This was not as you say Bee Gee news, this information was obtained=20 through sources other than Bee Gee mangement and without the BGQ staff=20 putting it on this section, no one would have known about it. The bottom=20 line is, information exclusive to paid members should NOT have been printed=20 on a public forum > For your information > The news on the members only page of BGQ about Robin=E2=80=99s solo plans=20= was=20 > nothing exclusively for that club / website or members only page. > Other Bee Gees clubs and web sites as well as members only pages did brin= g=20 > the news around that same time as well when it was published for the=20 > outside=20 > world ( that is: for all the Bee Gees fans) 3. That EXACT information was exclusive to that page because the news=20 release that was copied here was obtained by the BGQ staff for their use. =20 The news could have been discussed WITHOUT someone feeling it was their=20 responsibility to COPY the news release from the BGQ website! If the staff=20 had wanted the news release published on this list, I think they were capabl= e=20 of posting it here themselves!=20 > What is the fact is that only BGQ is allowed to publish news and important= =20 > messages on this list, some other clubs or web site people aren=E2=80=99t=20= allowed=20 > to=20 > do so. > You didn=E2=80=99t know? Sorry!! > But this way you miss a lot. This Words mailing list uses censorship a lot= =20 > and withhold all their readers and BG fans of this list of news and other=20 > interesting details. 4. Untrue. Others are allowed to bring news to this list. > I myself read the Robin news on some other web site before it was publishe= d=20 > on this list. A website of which I cannot mention the name in this=20 > message=20 > as it=E2=80=99s been blocked from this list together with a lot of other n= ames=20 > related to this website and a BG club. >=20 5. Yes, the news was out on other lists...but NOT the news release=20 itself...once again, it was placed on a section for the use of paying=20 membership of that club with password protection BECAUSE it was obtain by BG= Q=20 staff through sources OTHER than Bee Gees management, therefore BGQ was unde= r=20 NO obligation to share with anyone and entitled to share with only the=20 members of their club. =20 > This was done by your mailing list owner who more than once stated that hi= s=20 > list doesn=E2=80=99t use censorship in any way: wrong I=E2=80=99m afraid a= nd sorry for you=20 >=20 > all!! > A mailing list shouldn=E2=80=99t use censorship but I=E2=80=99m afraid thi= s list does and=20 > only publishes what one of the BG clubs: BGQ wants to be published. >=20 6. A list owner is entitled to allow or disallow whomever he wants to post=20 on his/her list. That doesn't mean it is censorship. Certain posters are=20 not allowed for reasons that you may not be aware of. And it is the owner's= =20 right to make such decisions! > I cannot explain too much otherwise I will be removed from this list like=20= so=20 >=20 > many others were already in the past while trying to bring you news and=20 > details about your fave group. >=20 7. I don't think that will happen....go ahead, explain, I think we would al= l=20 like to hear it. =20 > In short, all related words to some other clubs and web sites have been=20 > blocked and all the messages containing these words mentioned by one of yo= u=20 >=20 > or by these websites or club themselves won=E2=80=99t be published here!! > A pity but true and bad publicity for this mailing list. >=20 8. Its funny that every time news from BGQ appears, someone with a new name= =20 pops up to complain that no other club is allowed to post news...why is that= ? > Regards > Annie >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --part1_63.13026de8.2ad2d956_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:39:37 EDT From: RobinGibb1Fan@aol.com Subject: Re: Digest (10/07/2002 06:01) (#2002-3109) --part1_1b9.748d646.2ad2da89_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mary, How Long Have You Like The Bee Gees For? From Kirsten --part1_1b9.748d646.2ad2da89_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:18:49 -0400 From: Joseph Brennan Subject: Re: Maurice knows what he's talking about ! > At the moment, they knew nothing about it...but they went and talked > to Maurice, who told them > that it was true and gave them the information that no new songs were > done for the album.. There definitely are new songs on the album. > so don't go talking too loud... > about the brothers not talking to each other When did I say they were not talking? I said: >> Yes it is a wrong thing. Maurice was not involved with this >> project. He is nice enough to talk to people, but we can't >> expect him to know about something he did not work on. Joe Brennan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:31:54 EDT From: Laughinchild@aol.com Subject: List CENSORSHIP and other Bee Gees Clubs --part1_e5.1f29f6c0.2ad2e6ca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Laughinchild@aol.com writes: > ALL fan club websites have such "private" sctions and all expect=20 > the information to NOT be forwarded verbatim from there. This is industry= =20 > standards for fanclub website. You can check out Elton John, Areosmith,=20 > Rolling Stones' websites, if you don't believe it. Oh My Goodness! I have to anwer my own post. I forgot to mention that The=20 BEE GEES FAN CLUB or BGFC, also has such a Members Only section! How could=20= I=20 have left them out? After all, it is a BEE GEES FAN CLUB and reports news=20 primarily to its membership (ie...people who have paid dues). I am positive= =20 that the staff of the BEE GEES FAN CLUB would also be upset if something=20 meant only for its paying members had been copied and posted here or anywher= e=20 else without permission!=20 >=20 > What is the fact is that only BGQ is allowed to publish news and important= =20 > > messages on this list, some other clubs or web site people aren=E2=80= =99t allowed=20 >=20 > > to do so. > > You didn=E2=80=99t know? Sorry!! > > But this way you miss a lot. This Words mailing list uses censorship a=20 > lot=20 > > and withhold all their readers=20 > > I myself read the Robin news on some other web site before it was=20 > published=20 > > on this list. A website of which I cannot mention the name in this=20 > > message=20 > > as it=E2=80=99s been blocked from this list together with a lot of other= names=20 > > related to this website and a BG club. > > In short, all related words to some other clubs and web sites have been=20 > > blocked and all the messages containing these words mentioned by one of=20 > you=20 > > or by these websites or club themselves won=E2=80=99t be published here!= ! >=20 > If this message gets through to the list...I guess this is no longer a=20 > valid complaint is it?? After all I mentioned a BG club ( its the only=20 > other one that I know of) that is not BGQ several times didn't I? >=20 >=20 > Regards, Annie --part1_e5.1f29f6c0.2ad2e6ca_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:32:32 -0400 From: "Chris Mathis" Subject: Re: Robin > Via the list, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Robin for > thinking of naming the album after me. This was cute. :) .....----===*Chris... http://www.brothersgibb.com Bee Gees News and Information ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:30:20 +0200 From: "Ann Grootjans" Subject: RE: CENSORSHIP ON THIS MAILING LIST! The text on the password protected members-only page of BGQ was written by Robin Gibb's manager at BGQ's request. This is the only authorized version of the information that is in existence. All the rest has been spiced up with rumours, hear-say, and personal interpretations. This text has indeed been given to a BGQ staffer only, but, for Robin's sake, this same BGQ board member asked Bee Gees management to pass it on to Ms Bridge of BGFC, to have her inform her members (privately - not for website use). However, Bee Gees management failed to pass the text on to her in a timely manner as Ms Bridge drove down to the studio head-over-heels, BGQ members-only message in hand, to aggress the Bee Gees' private secretary over it (why it had not been made available to her). I take note of the fact that today, Ms Bridge has made information available to her members, which is not a replica of the original text written by Robin's manager, but reflects her own personal interpretation of his text. There is no censorship. Only a request from BGQ (not the owner of this list) to keep the information amongst those people it was intended for - the fans. That is why I have requested people who copied the info on websites accessible to the general public to remove it and replace it by a less detailed announcement that was given to several listowners earlier that week. I don't think that request was either unreasonable or out of the ordinary, while I do maintain the belief that any fanclub has the prerogative to negotiate perks for its members only. I have never requested that people should not be allowed to discuss the affair in closed fancommunities such as some of the mailing lists. I do not understand why someone is making a drama of something that is intended as something positive for both the fans and Robin. All the BGQ staff ever wanted was to inform Robin's and The Bee Gees' long-time fans before the news hit the press on the one hand, while on the other hand create some anticipation amongst fans for Robin's new project. Robin would love to have his fans' support and therefore did want to inform his fans first. For good order, his management did not inform the press at this point. The many good initial reactions to the news fans on this and other lists gave, have in fact made him very happy. Somebody out there seems to be blind to the notion that this whole matter should not evolve about who gave out what news first (and should imo better drop the big ego and one-up-man-ship thing for a change), but about Robin Gibb, who is hoping for, and in my opinion rightfully deserving the love and support of all his fans (as any of his brothers would). Robin's PR company is working on a website (www.robingibb.com) to inform the public and fans in an appropriate manner about this particular project - let's hope that will bring some relief soon, and, that in the mean time, this particular (unpleasant and unnecessary) thread/topic here will be laid to rest, in Robin's interest. Hopefully everybody will want to go back to the actual topic/news itself, that Robin Gibb has recorded a solo album, and is releasing a first single soon. Exciting news, and, a great bonus for all of his fans in a year that would otherwise not have seen any other Gibb releases or appearances. Ann ------------------------------ End words@brothersgibb.com Digest [10/07/2002 12:01] ----------------------------------------------------