[AndOne]

The limit is really low, 5 or 10 posts I think.

I understand your point, but then why not call it just "Mall - Wrong Time, Wrong Place" for all of them? If it's enough for a big market like Germany (over 80 million people right?), why France needs another title? I mean what are the chances that there's a movie in France that already titled "Mall - Wrong Time, Wrong Place"?

"Mall - Wrong Time, Wrong Place" is a local decision to give it a double title I guess, to make it look more exciting. It's not like that they pay attention to make it the same everywhere. The movie business is weird, don't think about it too hard.

It's think it's even stranger that it has a english title in france because they are so anti-english most of the time.

That a movie has different titles in different countries is completely normal. Especially with a "boring" title like Mall, name it A Day To Kill and show a guy with a gun and more people buy it.

This happens for many different reasons, to avoid confusion with a similar title, to make it more exciting etc. The name/cover is important to sell a movie in a store, especially when it never hit the theaters outside the US.

As much as I like the songs, The Last Line ending is just terrible, the last 10 seconds, I thought my ipod was dying when I listened to it for the first time.

The German LP newsletter confirms a physical release early next year.

C'mon there's no way these are by them, especially not in this quality.

MaL and MaLL both being used doesn't make it any easier.

Ammosick sounds the same to me, without comparing it though.

EDIT: You are right, though I find it hard to tell if the movie version is not an edited version of the full song.

Really disappointing that Dancer is just an instrumental. The full song is in the credits anyway, right? So technically we have it.

what a weird move to rename the tracks when the old titles are still in the credit roll.

It's still pure speculation that this point until there's further evidence it really exists. Both Mark and Nick say that this is the only song he recorded, at least to their knowledge, and they should know since they directly obtained the footage from him in 2006.

I looked at your screenshots later in the thread and There's no watermark, but that source is from Phospho? and is that where the audio rip comes from? and the audio was released in WAV format?

 

and what kind of camera did phospho exactly use? because the audio rip sounds pretty bad, so it must be some sort of Digicam-related stuff?

The lack of a watermark doesn't mean anything. Yeah it looks a lot like a low quality video from a digital camera. The low resolution and just 15 fps indicates that, no one would change the frame rate when converting it from a better quality source. That the audio is not the great either, it's mono i think is no big surprise there.

That phospho recorded the whole 2006 bow set seems like a completely new claim to me, I don't think it's true. I'm pretty sure we'd know that for a long time if that was the case.

I'd say it depends on if something is openly available for purchase, as far as I can tell this is US only.

"An exclusive concert and interview with Grammy Award-winning rock band Linkin Park. Performances include One Step Closer, In The End, Numb and Final Masquerade with host Nic Harcourt."

 

I am confused, it doesn't list Until It's Gone or any of the others...?

I'm pretty sure it's just a short text that mentions the highlights. Not a list of all the songs, TV stations usually don't bother with exact details.

I think it looks like he recorded only this song. At the beginning it looks like he just started recording, and ends just after next song already started, doesn't seem like it was cut out from a full recording.

I'm talking about what I uploaded and this sentence:

''(you can still do a phoenix220-style edit and replace the Anything Anything part from lprocks source and put in the phospho one, and still have the other songs be from the other source. and it'll be full for you , shoutout to you tho ).''

So again I didn't use another source so what do you mean ???

I think what he actually means is putting a part of the phospho source to fix the short skip in the lprocks recording of BOW, cause it's "incomplete" lmao. Who cares if a small part of the speech is missing, lots of recordings have cuts somewhere during the encore break for example and no one calls them incomplete, that's just nitpicking.

Makes sense, didn't he record only that one BOW song anyway?

Do you know if the video was recorded it that quality or is there a better source for this?

If you also feel like correcting the earpiece lossless is wav format.

lossless or wav doesn't matter, that can be changed once it's out.

lprocks recorded both 2005 and 2006, that is correct. 2006 is the full show and 2005 is just one song.

2005, source 1, that may be video or not but the only form it exists right now is just audio. That's why the comment says possibly video sourced.

No idea if phospho did anything in 2005, it's the first time i'm hearing about this.

I'd rather just listen to the live versions of Chester instead of having studio versions with Scott.

My issue with the Lake Forest recording is that it's extremely shitty quality. The Club Tattoo 2005 recording we do have is also extremely low quality, and the Club Tattoo 2006 recording is a little better, but still shitty sounding, IMO. If I could choose what show to have a recording of from BOW, it would definitely be the Albuquerque 2005 show because that is the show that Chester got kicked off stage and kicked off the tour, but that is ''holy grail'' worthy, IMO, we will never get that. It would just be nice to have full recordings of the 3 different sources that we DO have, you know? I've also been more of an audio guy, so I honestly don't even care about the video footage.

Stop bitching like a little girl. Be thankful that we have what we have, it's not high quality but it's not horrible either. If it wasn't for those 2 or 3 people we'd have nothing. It's a damn miracle considering almost no one records stuff in the US anymore plus almost no one even knew about the whole BOW thing back then.

Brazil 2004 had apparently 80,000, but their biggest show ever was Live8

It's the exact same stuff, the samples, that LP uses for their "real" songs, so how is that any different? lol

Any updates about the single? There's still no sign about the physical single release.

Maybe some PR person thought: LP was most successful band of 2001, let's throw in this fact that they were also the most busy band to make them look even more superior. It's funny that this over 300 shows "fact" is so old and nobody really questioned it all this time.

I have the stalkers recording and phosphos.

are you still talking about 2005? I'm pretty sure phospho has nothing to do with 2005.

I think 324 is way to specific to be made up. It could be the real number of shows they played for Hybrid Theory until a certain point.

About 160 in 2001, and we have about another 110 for 2000 and earlier in our database. It comes pretty close considering there are a couple of 1999 label showcases and early 2000 shows we have no info about.

If you add the 23 shows from 2002 you easily get to the 324 for the entire HT touring cycle.

They either made up this number completely or someone did the math. In the Rolling Stone interview Phoenix estimated over 300 not 324, and that was at the end of 2001. I think it's also not unlikely that someone was keeping track and that they knew that LP played over 300 shows at this point (but probably not with Phoenix anyway). Whoever came up with the whole over 324 shows in 2001 seems not very smart, especially when you publish that "fact" in a book. It baffles me when people on Facebook for example believe this fact to be true because it's printed in a book, instead of just applying simple logic to it, that it's simply impossible for any band, especially an internationally touring band to play this many shows in one year without dying from exhaustion.