From The Evanescence Reference


I think this page must redirect to the song and not to the album... what do you guys think? --gerard_armando 08:04, 25 July 2007 (PDT)

Bootleg copy

I have a bootleg copy of Origin and I have another way that you can tell its a fake. David Hodges is spelled wrong. Instead of Hodges, it's Hodgos. May I go ahead and add this to the article? --Evanescent.Night 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, add this! Thank you! --MyImmortalLove4u 10:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian Bootleg

I added the "Russian Re-Release" to Fake with track listing. However, it is okay if you want to remove it. Brambletalon25 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin version

I have a copy of Origin with "David Hodges" misspelled as "David Hodgos" also, I believe this just to be a typo not a fake release. Everything else about version seems fine except the misprints. I believe this to be a pre-release version. Request to remove that it is fake or can someone explain how its fake?--The Master (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2015 (PDT)

Origin misprint or fake

Have version of Origin that matches 2500 Demo release version, (but actually pre-release). On the front of the disc in the black part of artwork left of Origin print, it reads "Uthama Puthiran", also not in English print something above that. This is a 1958 movie, strange because of the year being the same as movie clip in intro song. It is not raised text or either below black artwork but more within the black background itself. Anyone seen this before or have idea of how this is there. --The Master (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2015 (PDT)

Origin info page.

The lack of no IFPI, does not mean a album is fake, why would a demo contain an IFPI anyways? All the information given is fine, but nobody knows for a fact what the true copy of the demo (Origin) is. --The Master (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2016 (PDT)--The Master (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2016 (PDT)

RELIABLE SOURCES for the 'Pre-release' thing

Please, "The Master"... If you want to legitimize your 'Pre-release' version of Origin, get official sources to back you up. Without authentic evidence and proof, this Wiki page will continue to rely on information which has been given by official sources. Up to now, there is no evidence to support such a thing as a 'pre-release'. So, if you have a copy like this, that is no problem. But if you want to put it HERE, on a reference page for fans and collectors, PLEASE back your information up with reliable sources.

Have in mind that this edit wouldn't be a minor edit. You'd be affirming that a whole new batch of these CDs exist - which could be true. But until it is proven by an official source that Origin has had a 'pre-release', refrain from posting this information here.


Mono playback

Track 3 has mono playback, whole album is duo mono playback, do these official releases have that? I showed proof, what more official sources could you need? Also, after looking through this entire website, very little has an official source for the information?

The Master (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2016 (PDT)

Yet again, another misleading info

I understand that YOUR copy has a distinctive difference from the information available online about Origin.

However, the problem is that you claim your different CD is a "PRE"-release. There have been several different pieces of info regarding Origin and its copies, bootlegs and so on. Yours is just another one, but nothing you've showed here so far can actually prove your CD comes from a batch produced BEFORE the official release on Nov. 4th. That is what "pre-" means: "before".

So far, there has been no official confirmation from any reliable source that Origin has had any "pre-releases", "UK releases", "radio broadcast only releases", etc (as I lovely explained in the "Identifying True Copies" section from the Origin article). So, TheMaster, please don't upload anything here regarding a pressing of the CD which was not proven authentic by any known and reliable source. You can do whatever you want at Discogs (as you have already done - I noticed) but there is a no-man's-land.

Here, in a REFERENCE page, you've gotta have something more than conviction to legitimize a copy of the CD which is known to have several different bootleg pressings (each one closer to the real deal than the previous one) but all of which can be identified by the information I posted there in the "Identifying True Copies" section (IFPI/SID codes, lettering and writings on the inner foil ring, hue of the cover, etc).

Within 7 billion people in this vast world, do you really believe you're the one lucky human being who ended up possessing the one and only copy of the (highly bootlegged) Origin and it HAS TO BE a "pre-"release which no one else has ever heard of? You seem to forget that the producer of the CD, BigWig employees and other reliable sources have CONFIRMED Origin was realeased ON NOVEMBER FORTH and not an hour before. So, if you've got a 'new' copy of the CD and you truly believe it is authentic (despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise), then come up with a SOURCE to back you up. Analyzing the CD in a computer program is merely incidental. That does not prove it is authentic, let alone that it is "pre"-whatever.

Got it?

Ok, understand, but the recording is duo mono and track 3 is mono playback. Why does nobody else have this version anyways, where is the rest? How can it be that a bootleg has mono playback, wouldn't it be a direct copy of the official version which is stereo sound? --The Master (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2016 (PDT)

What if a comparison of the version I got was made between the official version? (Will provide a sample of the mono playback) If you have official sources on this website, then have them declare what the version is I got.--The Master (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2016 (PDT)

Well, why don't YOU move a little bit and have some effort to get in contact with any official souce, then? Please, remember that up to now, the information regarding the mastering, recording and so on was gotten by people who questioned and interviewed Brad. So, ANYTHING which differs from that should be considered rumor or info related to bootlegs. If the one responsible to produce the CD has stated something, then it should be considered canon and the official source needed to change things here. If you don't mind, until there is some kind of information coming from him or someone able to answer the questions which might have popped recently, any other info should be considered rumor and any other CD should be considered bootleg.

Also, until there is some sort of confirmation from Brad himself or any other person able to answer such questions, pre-releases should not be considered authentic in anyway, thus, should not be in the main article. --Marcinho (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2016 (PDT)

Do you erase all new information posted on this website that you don't agree with? Instead of erasing the information why not prove it wrong, how can you say something doesn't exist with no explanation. You have no reason to say this disc doesn't have mono playback.

Also, with all the talk of e-mail hacking lately, how do you know those aren't bootleg e-mails!

Let's wrap it all up, shall we?

Dear The Master, let me be VERY didatic here so you can understand things:

First of all, it is not a matter of "agreeing with" or disagreeing. Here is a REFERENCE page. It is not a no-man's-land like Discogs. There, anyone can edit whatever they want to their own benefit. Here, there is at least some commitment to the truth. Have you realized what you've been doing? You come here and totally dissatisfied about the fact that your copy of Origin doesn't have all the features of an authentic one create some non-sense about a PRE-RELEASE edition. However, if you have some information like this, you need to back it up with EVIDENCE that it is not only genuine but also belonging to a batch prior to the release of the real deal Origin. Then, you kind of support your facts by bringing up ideas which simply do not apply to Evanescence. We all know SOME OTHER BANDS have pre-release versions of their stuff without IFPI/SID codes and so on.

But Brad has ALREADY stated that there have been (as mentioned in the main article... have you actually read it all?) 2 different batches of Origin... the X0 and the N1 ones. NOTHING apart from these two batches is really authentic. You certainly are not the first one to be frustrated because you spent your precious money buying something unauthentic. I myself have been exactly in the same situation before. What I cannot do is come here, with my release which CLEARLY doesn't belong to any of those batches and try my best to legitimize it just because. For the sake of the money I spent on it... Do you see? That is what you have been doing.

Of course your version has different "properties" than the real deal CD. It is a different CD!! What would you expect? Obviously there are gonna be several differences if the CD you own is absolutely different from the real deal 2500-copies authentic Origin! Having a different cut or sound quality or something like this doesn't prove anything, dude!

Let's for a moment give you the benefit of the doubt: if you truly believe your copy of the CD is authentic, then what you should do is scan it in HD, provide a perfect rip of it and meanwhile try your best efforts to get in contact with Brad or someone able to answer you some critical questions (which can probably ONLY be answered by Brad himself or David, maybe as Amy, for instance, has already shown she doesn't remember much about the techinical and burocratic part of the production of Origin). Then IF (and ONLY "if") someone like them actually CONFIRM there has been another batch other than the X0 and the N1 ones, then you can check ---> IF <--- your copy belongs to that recently discovered old batch. The only negative side about it all is that it has already been confirmed that there were no pre-releases, UK releases and/or other batches other than the ones I previously mentioned. So, for all we know so far, ANYTHING other than those 2 batches is a bootleg.

Please, don't question the evidences we have nowadays because they certainly were hard to obtain. You see what you are doing? You are doubting the canon evidence we have and legitimizing a copy of your album just because you can't accept yours is a fake release/bootleg.

So, to sum it up, you have gotten yourself into trouble at Evthreads going around in circles forever and ever with this discussion. You have turned Discogs into a carnival costume with patches of truth and inches and inches of lies and misleading information. I will not let you do the same here. This is a page people come for some reference and it should contain reliable information backed up by authentic sources. I understand you would like to acknowledge the existance of your version of the CD here; however, here is a place where only the true copy really matters. The bootlegs won't find much room here. The only one noteworthy is the 2004 Russian Origin "re-release" (for obvious reasons). Apart from that, if you want to start a database of the technical info of the bootlegged copies (such as yours), do you really think this article is the best place to keep this record? Also, if you really want to include this kind of information on the official Origin article, then there should be, AT LEAST, a couple more other fake releases info (without having the non-sense "PRE" and "RELEASE" together in the same sentence, please!) to make it decent and impartial. Otherwise, you would be just editing a reference page to upload details of your own version just to gain visibility for the bootleg and that seems kind of lame.

To make a (very) long story short, do whatever you want at Discogs. There, time will tell apart misleading information from the truthful bit. But at EvThreads, this conversation was going in circles and it was brought to an end by the moderators. Here, you can talk as much as you can HERE IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE, NOT IN THE MAIN ARTICLE. Please, refrain from posting on information you cannot prove or that goes against what has already been proved and stated as a fact.

If you want to disprove this kind of info, fine... chase after some authentic and reliable sources (please, don't fake souces, OK?) and THEN come here and edit the page uploading the proof as well. By all means I am not saying your CD doesn't have a mono playback. I'm just saying that ACCORDING TO THE DATA we already gathered, you CD is a bootleg, so why bother changing the main article with the details of the mono/stereo playback of one track belonging to a bootleg realease? If you are so eager to contribute to the main article constructively, you could say that "Some bootlegged copies, despite their very elaborate quality, were found with different sound properties which bring up a new mystery: how did bootleggers put their hands on a song with different properties from the original versions released on Origin?". Have I made myself clear enough or do we need to keep on discussing this topic in an infinite loop until you get yourself banned from here as well? --Marcinho (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2016 (PDT)

Somewhere in all that dragged out mess above you said I need proof. I guess my only proof is the disc, its hard to believe nobody else has the same one and can verify something more or just that it is true? It must be the one and only I guess! I will refrain from posting information, until proof is shown.

That's happy news.

2 IFPI codes for the only press?

How is it that the official release being the only release has 2 Sid Codes (Master and Mould)? If there was only one press usually an album would only have a Master Sid Code, then addition presses have a Mould one and a Master Sid Code.

That's a very good question. Maybe someone from BigWig Enterprises could answer that for you. :-) --Marcinho (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (PDT)

If they actually answered questions we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. --The Master (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

Oh, how silly of me... Lol ... I totally forgot to tell you! They have already answered this question of yours...

The reason why Origin has two SID codes is because they decided to make it with two SID codes instead of one. How awesome is that?? You've got one of your questions answered!! :-) :-) :-) :-) --Marcinho (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

So, versions of "Origin" with 1 Master Sid Code are what then, bootlegs?--The Master (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

I am happy you have finally gotten to a right conclusion this time. Yes. They're bootlegs. :-)   

But wait! Have you or haven't you read the Origin article you kept on changing before? Because I am pretty sure the answer to THIS question was pretty stated in the article. From now on, please refer to page to check if the answers you seek are already there or not. It'll save you some time. --Marcinho (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2016 (PDT)

Nowhere in the Origin article is there proof of the only official version having to contain 2 IFPI codes, as I remember you wrote the whole article. All 2 IFPI's mean is that it was replicated at a later time from the original master.--The Master (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2016 (PDT)