Two Bootleg Recordings on the Floyd Page

Ok... I'll post this link, one more time....

www.harvested.org.

That KQED DVD is created by Harvested.org.  You can even click on the picture of KQED that's on that site; it clearly identifies Harvested on the back of the DVD cover.  A little bit of trivia here... HARVEST RECORDS was the record company that Floyd signed with in 1969, and stayed with until The Final Cut, at which point they moved to EMI.  So what is HARVESTED RECORDS?  A clever play on the name HARVEST RECORDS.  Like most bootleg suppliers, they find something on the band's history to base their name off of.  Take, for instance, Free Range Pigs.  That's another Pink Floyd Bootleg Distributor.  Anyway, you can read Harvested.org's site.  They create that stuff on their own.  Their stuff can only be obtained by trading.  All that information is right on their site.  I fail to see how anymore research is involved.

As for the Complete Zabriskie Point... I own it.  It's a bootleg.  It can only be obtainted by trading.  What more proof does one need?  But I suppose you want me to link you to some information, so...

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/unauth/pink_floyd/the_compl ete_zabriskie_point_sessions/
Clearly labled as a bootleg^
http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t6396-the-complete-zabriskie-poi nt-sessions.html
They discuss how its up for trade on that board^  They clearly identify it as a CDR release...
http://pf-db.com/index.php?list=songs&choice=244
There it is listed on an RoIO database (Recordings of illegitimate origin)
http://www.roio.radzionkow.net/roio.htm
Another RoIO database^


And that Masters of Rock Album... that is legit.  I said that.  I spent an hour the other day researching it.  Its the other album, The Best of Pink Floyd album that looks sketchy.  Featuring the same tracklisting, the same Catalogue Number, a spelling mistake directly on the tracklist, and a release four years apart from the known legit Masters of Rock?  That completely suggests being a boot.  Especially the catalogue number.  I can see no reason for it being exactly the same as Masters of Rock.. yet it is.  That is pretty much a sure sign of illegitimacy.


Edited by ResidentAlien

DBSilver wrote: PROGMAN wrote: the album was listed in a rival PROG website ProgGnosis.com and "rival Prog website"  ??? Gee what's next... "Hated Enemy website"?  Certainly the mutual patrons of the two web sites would consider both sites to be assets to the prog community rather than rivals.

OK point taken.....

....by all means not a critism both sites offer good PROG arguments, I didn't literally mean by the word "rival" just showing it was from a different source.

Maybe I should have choson my words more carefully.

^^ very lucky