|
Post by acandec on Mar 2, 2007 18:57:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unicorn07 on Mar 2, 2007 20:12:02 GMT
This album is a pirated album...I believe pirated is the right word here. This album showed up right after Evanescence became succesful, although obivously not with that cover. I remember hearing/seeing about it all over the web shortly after there success.
That is about all I know, I believe it has a bunch of songs that haven't been released.
|
|
|
Post by acandec on Mar 2, 2007 20:43:03 GMT
Thanks for your answer And you're right, the songs are all about 2001/2002 Demos, including THAT one... But I don't know, how can a pirated CD be all over the flea markets around the world?? Smells like trash!
|
|
|
Post by unicorn07 on Mar 2, 2007 21:48:29 GMT
A lot of markets have pirated and ripped off things, everything from DVDs to fashion clothes. Then there shipped off around the world, though many countries are *trying* to stop this. It is amazing how these items make there way around the world!
And I just have to say I LOVE your icon! Its so stunning!
|
|
|
Post by sweetserenity on Mar 4, 2007 8:10:37 GMT
The correct word is Bootleg, meaning it's fake.
This CD isn't in flea markets all over the world.
This CD has circulated all over the world through e-Bay and Amazon.
There have been two, one being mistakingly called "Not For Your Easy," covers for this CD. Now there are three because of the cover that just surfaced. Here they are.
I think this is one. This would make four then.
There's also one with a black background stars and the old Evanescence logo that's on the "Evanescence EP," "Origin," and the "Bring Me To Life" promotional single. I can't seem to find it though.[/size]
|
|
|
Post by DarkFlare89 on Mar 4, 2007 22:48:49 GMT
Ultra Rare Trax is a different bootleg than Not For Your Ears.
There is apparently a few versions. One is rare, another is the second image you posted when Ben was still in the band, another doesn't have You in it, and a third is the 2005 edition that has Amy + that picture of her kissing the raven. I think the final one has more added demo tracks/random crap.
|
|
|
Post by acandec on Mar 5, 2007 17:30:05 GMT
OK, but I can't consider it like a Bootleg or Demo or anything like this. It is not like 2001-2002 Demos, is it? For me it looks like really pirated, 'cause if one version of this cd has that stuff, I can't recognize it as "something good". It's really like trash. Well, I don't know, it's my opinion, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks unicorn07 for your answer and for liking it!! There are good icons here www.evanescence.com.br/Media/avatares.php (it's in portuguese, just do the right-click).
|
|
|
Post by nyohah on Mar 5, 2007 22:16:13 GMT
Pirated and bootleg are basically the same thing--an illegally released cd--so you're both correct. Bootleg can also refer to fan-recorded live shows, but I think the term came about from fan-recorded live shows that were released for profit (an illegally released cd), and then gained the larger meaning of fan-recorded live shows that were traded freely online.
|
|
|
Post by acandec on Mar 7, 2007 17:02:48 GMT
Really? So, what I think is wrong: 97-98 and 01-02 [glow=red]Demos Bootlegs[/glow] aren't like recorded cds by Evanescence, to do their work/art/job/what-they-want and show them to have a big label? So these CDs were made by fans?? Are they only this? I feel tired..
|
|
|
Post by sweetserenity on Mar 7, 2007 21:31:51 GMT
Really? So, what I think is wrong: 97-98 and 01-02 [glow=red]Demos Bootlegs[/glow] aren't like recorded cds by Evanescence, to do their work/art/job/what-they-want and show them to have a big label? So these CDs were made by fans?? Are they only this? I feel tired.. Yes. They're only made by fans. It's a bootleg, on the Epic "label" like the "Origin" re-release. Which is a fake.[/size]
|
|
|
Post by DarkFlare89 on Mar 8, 2007 3:13:36 GMT
Well...the 97-98 demos & 01-02 demos aren't bootlegs. They are 'bootlegged' by people but not bootlegs in themselves. Those are just groups that fans named to cluster certain types of songs for organization purposes.
Evanescence never said. "Okay, these are the 97-98 demos. These demos are from 2001. These are from 2002. etc." Just a group of demos made during a certain time and people catagorized them as such.
|
|
|
Post by acandec on Mar 16, 2007 16:11:18 GMT
Wow! Thanks for your answer! So, bringing this topic to life again I can't say Demos 97-98 has Exodus and Give unto me and Goodnight and October, 'cause Exodus has a certain CD, the Evanescence EP CD-R, right? What is correct is consider Demos 97-98 with only three songs (GUM, Goodnight and October). OK? Is it all correct?
|
|
|
Post by nyohah on Mar 16, 2007 20:36:18 GMT
That's correct. There may be a demo of Exodus, but the one people have sounds just like the EP version, so I think someone just mislabeled it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkFlare89 on Mar 16, 2007 21:10:55 GMT
It is the same It's just that when originally it was begin ripped from recorder to computer (theory from ev.it and other forums) it didn't rip well to the computer. There was static in the word 'back-pack' and an overall less quality of the mp3. Thus that became the 'demo' so to speak. They retried and it worked much better and that went to the EP. Hence why EP Version sounds a bit better/clearer/non-staticy then the demo version. At least, that is what people say...
|
|
|
Post by sweetserenity on Mar 18, 2007 4:45:49 GMT
Wow! Thanks for your answer! So, bringing this topic to life again I can't say Demos 97-98 has Exodus and Give unto me and Goodnight and October, 'cause Exodus has a certain CD, the Evanescence EP CD-R, right? What is correct is consider Demos 97-98 with only three songs (GUM, Goodnight and October). OK? Is it all correct? No. Those are considered the Outtakes.[/size]
|
|