Hi,
thank you very much for upload the Miracle medley!
Tim June
Thread
Posts in chronological order
rhyeking
Call me stubborn (I've been called worse), but as compelling as SirGH's argument is, I'm only willing to entertain the possibility and won't be drafted into the NOTW camp just yet. In support of the idea is that Queen-fandom has a history of mis-attributing such demos, such as claiming Barry Mitchell's involvement on at least one and the aforementioned "Celebration" and "I Can Get You Out Of My Head."
I'm stepping out of the debate on these particular demos, because until someone in the Queen camp weighs in, it's going to keep going back and forth.
Someone write Brian, ask, "Hey Bri, did you guys ever jam on Silver Salmon while recording the News Of The World album? Rumors are flying that you guys did. Also, was Silver Salmon written by Tim Staffell or Freddie?"
If he replies, great.
Oh, and you're welcome, everyone who thanked me for The Miracle Demos Medley. I'm glad it worked, but man, it was a pain.
Peace
I'm stepping out of the debate on these particular demos, because until someone in the Queen camp weighs in, it's going to keep going back and forth.
Someone write Brian, ask, "Hey Bri, did you guys ever jam on Silver Salmon while recording the News Of The World album? Rumors are flying that you guys did. Also, was Silver Salmon written by Tim Staffell or Freddie?"
If he replies, great.
Oh, and you're welcome, everyone who thanked me for The Miracle Demos Medley. I'm glad it worked, but man, it was a pain.
Peace
The Real Wizard
Benn Kempster wrote:
"I have a hard time believing that they would bother to revisit something THAT old and which, unlike "Hangman", never made it any further. You say that they revisited the track in 1977 - what evidence is that that this is true? Is it just an assumption on your part? (Please don't take that as an accusation - just interested to know.)"
Of course, I'm happy to be called on anything. Naturally, this isn't *evidence* as much as it's a suggestion based on the band's history. But to my ears, everything on the recording points to 1977 - their overall sound as a band, the drum kit being used, and the maturity of Freddie's voice. It's a lot huskier than it was in 1972. He may sound a bit timid to the point that it may sound like it's from a few years earlier, but let's not forget that they're just running a song for their own amusement. His voice cracks a couple times, but maybe it was the end of a long day in the studio. At the beginning of the second verse, on "all along the silver skies," the way he draws out "skiiiiiies-ahh" has News Of The World written all over it.
Sometimes bands revisit old song ideas for fun. Let's not forget We Are The Champions was written in 1975 - perhaps even earlier.
Even if there were 10 arguments in favour of it, the drum argument is the only one we need. Unless someone can prove that Roger had a studio kit with timbales in a year other than 1977, I think we should be able to seal the deal on this one.
"Now, if this is from 1977, how do you account for Freddie saying "I know he doesn't know it" in the version with studio chatter preceding the track? That, to me, sounds like it's come from a tape of an early session with John finding his way around material that Queen have been playing around with."
I take that comment as John not knowing it because he may not have been in the band (or at least, present) when they originally rehearsed the song in 1971.
"I have a hard time believing that they would bother to revisit something THAT old and which, unlike "Hangman", never made it any further. You say that they revisited the track in 1977 - what evidence is that that this is true? Is it just an assumption on your part? (Please don't take that as an accusation - just interested to know.)"
Of course, I'm happy to be called on anything. Naturally, this isn't *evidence* as much as it's a suggestion based on the band's history. But to my ears, everything on the recording points to 1977 - their overall sound as a band, the drum kit being used, and the maturity of Freddie's voice. It's a lot huskier than it was in 1972. He may sound a bit timid to the point that it may sound like it's from a few years earlier, but let's not forget that they're just running a song for their own amusement. His voice cracks a couple times, but maybe it was the end of a long day in the studio. At the beginning of the second verse, on "all along the silver skies," the way he draws out "skiiiiiies-ahh" has News Of The World written all over it.
Sometimes bands revisit old song ideas for fun. Let's not forget We Are The Champions was written in 1975 - perhaps even earlier.
Even if there were 10 arguments in favour of it, the drum argument is the only one we need. Unless someone can prove that Roger had a studio kit with timbales in a year other than 1977, I think we should be able to seal the deal on this one.
"Now, if this is from 1977, how do you account for Freddie saying "I know he doesn't know it" in the version with studio chatter preceding the track? That, to me, sounds like it's come from a tape of an early session with John finding his way around material that Queen have been playing around with."
I take that comment as John not knowing it because he may not have been in the band (or at least, present) when they originally rehearsed the song in 1971.
Jam Monkey
Sir GH wrote: An afterthought...
The list of "demos" is great, but demos need to be distinguished from actual studio takes. But unfortunately there is very little such information available. Here's all the info I have about the studio takes that are available:
1972 - Great King Rat (takes 1 and 4)
1973 - Funny How Love Is (take 4)
1973 - The March Of The Black Queen (takes 3-5)
1976 - Somebody To Love (takes 1-5)
1977 - Feelings Feelings (take 6)
1982 - Staying Power (January 27, unknown take)
1982 - Life Is Real (February 7, unknown take)
I'm just going by what I've read, as I'm no expert of the band in the studio. And quite frankly, I don't think anyone is, because it doesn't seem the information has ever been compiled into one place, like it has been for The Beatles, for example. There's a day by day book of the Beatles' studio work, and it's an incredible read.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I understand completely about separating studio takes from demos. My thoughts when compling the list was just to keep things as simple as possible.
From my experience of seeing peoples own trade lists etc. lot of people have different naming conventions for unreleased tracks. I thought it would be best just to keep it plain and allow people to call them what they want.
The list of "demos" is great, but demos need to be distinguished from actual studio takes. But unfortunately there is very little such information available. Here's all the info I have about the studio takes that are available:
1972 - Great King Rat (takes 1 and 4)
1973 - Funny How Love Is (take 4)
1973 - The March Of The Black Queen (takes 3-5)
1976 - Somebody To Love (takes 1-5)
1977 - Feelings Feelings (take 6)
1982 - Staying Power (January 27, unknown take)
1982 - Life Is Real (February 7, unknown take)
I'm just going by what I've read, as I'm no expert of the band in the studio. And quite frankly, I don't think anyone is, because it doesn't seem the information has ever been compiled into one place, like it has been for The Beatles, for example. There's a day by day book of the Beatles' studio work, and it's an incredible read.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I understand completely about separating studio takes from demos. My thoughts when compling the list was just to keep things as simple as possible.
From my experience of seeing peoples own trade lists etc. lot of people have different naming conventions for unreleased tracks. I thought it would be best just to keep it plain and allow people to call them what they want.
Jam Monkey
I just finished uploading all the demos, please see this thread:
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1235104/demo-and-convention-collection.aspx
http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1235104/demo-and-convention-collection.aspx
FriedChicken
Sir GH wrote: An afterthought...
The list of "demos" is great, but demos need to be distinguished from actual studio takes. But unfortunately there is very little such information available. Here's all the info I have about the studio takes that are available:
1972 - Great King Rat (takes 1 and 4)
1973 - Funny How Love Is (take 4)
1973 - The March Of The Black Queen (takes 3-5)
1976 - Somebody To Love (takes 1-5)
1977 - Feelings Feelings (take 6)
1982 - Staying Power (January 27, unknown take)
1982 - Life Is Real (February 7, unknown take)
I'm just going by what I've read, as I'm no expert of the band in the studio. And quite frankly, I don't think anyone is, because it doesn't seem the information has ever been compiled into one place, like it has been for The Beatles, for example. There's a day by day book of the Beatles' studio work, and it's an incredible read.
I agree, the Queen unreleased catalogue is so poorly documented, which is probably due to lack of studio knowledge and p2p sharing (we all remember Mr Roboto, don't we?).
Stuff which is tagged as demo's aren't demo's but studio takes and there's a lot of fake stuff going around as well.
How do you know Feelings Feelings is a take 6, Bob?
The list of "demos" is great, but demos need to be distinguished from actual studio takes. But unfortunately there is very little such information available. Here's all the info I have about the studio takes that are available:
1972 - Great King Rat (takes 1 and 4)
1973 - Funny How Love Is (take 4)
1973 - The March Of The Black Queen (takes 3-5)
1976 - Somebody To Love (takes 1-5)
1977 - Feelings Feelings (take 6)
1982 - Staying Power (January 27, unknown take)
1982 - Life Is Real (February 7, unknown take)
I'm just going by what I've read, as I'm no expert of the band in the studio. And quite frankly, I don't think anyone is, because it doesn't seem the information has ever been compiled into one place, like it has been for The Beatles, for example. There's a day by day book of the Beatles' studio work, and it's an incredible read.
I agree, the Queen unreleased catalogue is so poorly documented, which is probably due to lack of studio knowledge and p2p sharing (we all remember Mr Roboto, don't we?).
Stuff which is tagged as demo's aren't demo's but studio takes and there's a lot of fake stuff going around as well.
How do you know Feelings Feelings is a take 6, Bob?
FriedChicken
"Now, if this is from 1977, how do you account for Freddie saying
"I
know he doesn't know it" in the version with studio chatter
preceding the track? That, to me, sounds like it's come from a tape of
an early session with John finding his way around material that Queen
have been playing around with."
@Benn
If you listen carefully you can hear Freddie say: "Let's play a bit or Silver Samon, I know he (probably John) doesn't know it, but he might just play on".
Apparantly he didn't play on, as there is no bass at all in the recording.
It wouldn't be logical to waste precious 1972 studio time playing and recording (1) a song the bass player doesn't know. (remember they were recording in studio down-time whenever they had an hour or so between bigger artists.
"I
know he doesn't know it" in the version with studio chatter
preceding the track? That, to me, sounds like it's come from a tape of
an early session with John finding his way around material that Queen
have been playing around with."
@Benn
If you listen carefully you can hear Freddie say: "Let's play a bit or Silver Samon, I know he (probably John) doesn't know it, but he might just play on".
Apparantly he didn't play on, as there is no bass at all in the recording.
It wouldn't be logical to waste precious 1972 studio time playing and recording (1) a song the bass player doesn't know. (remember they were recording in studio down-time whenever they had an hour or so between bigger artists.
Negative Creep
FriedChicken wrote:
It wouldn't be logical to waste precious 1972 studio time playing and recording (1) a song the bass player doesn't know. (remember they were recording in studio down-time whenever they had an hour or so between bigger artists.
That is purely a playback that's been bootlegged (hence the chatter and the sound of the tape being started), and there most likely exists a later proper mix that is finished with the bass overdubbed. It seems that the band laid the track down first without bass - and the band often revisited recordings some time after laying them down. Interesting if they're from the NOTW sessions - they sound a lot fuller than anything from that album.
It wouldn't be logical to waste precious 1972 studio time playing and recording (1) a song the bass player doesn't know. (remember they were recording in studio down-time whenever they had an hour or so between bigger artists.
That is purely a playback that's been bootlegged (hence the chatter and the sound of the tape being started), and there most likely exists a later proper mix that is finished with the bass overdubbed. It seems that the band laid the track down first without bass - and the band often revisited recordings some time after laying them down. Interesting if they're from the NOTW sessions - they sound a lot fuller than anything from that album.
The Real Wizard
FriedChicken wrote:
"How do you know Feelings Feelings is a take 6, Bob?"
Like I said, I don't know. It's just something I once read, so I'm simply going by that until more accurate comes along.. if it ever comes along.
"It wouldn't be logical to waste precious 1972 studio time playing and recording (1) a song the bass player doesn't know. (remember they were recording in studio down-time whenever they had an hour or so between bigger artists."
Exactly. Another argument to add to the pile.
"How do you know Feelings Feelings is a take 6, Bob?"
Like I said, I don't know. It's just something I once read, so I'm simply going by that until more accurate comes along.. if it ever comes along.
"It wouldn't be logical to waste precious 1972 studio time playing and recording (1) a song the bass player doesn't know. (remember they were recording in studio down-time whenever they had an hour or so between bigger artists."
Exactly. Another argument to add to the pile.
The Real Wizard
Negative Creep wrote:
"It seems that the band laid the track down first without bass - and the band often revisited recordings some time after laying them down"
There definitely is bass on the recording we have, but it's far-fetched to suggest it was added on a later date. This is simply a jam and the tape is rolling. I'm using this video as a time reference - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12aeYpTFLg
John comes in at :18 after he gets a brief feel for the song. At :32 the chords change for the chorus. He's still playing an E and switches to D when he realizes the chord is D. As a musician, this indicates to me that John is learning the song as it goes along. There's not a chance he'd be learning a tune like this while recording in 1971 or 72 when they had very limited studio time. The learning was done somewhere else.
We've put on our best historians' caps and we have several pieces of evidence strongly suggesting this is from 1977. All we have at this point is folklore suggesting it's 1971/72. I think we need to lay this one to rest until some tangible evidence comes to light. Otherwise it'd be like hanging onto the notion that everything in the bible is historically accurate despite the fact that there are credible historical sources that suggest otherwise in most cases. I think we're better than that.
"It seems that the band laid the track down first without bass - and the band often revisited recordings some time after laying them down"
There definitely is bass on the recording we have, but it's far-fetched to suggest it was added on a later date. This is simply a jam and the tape is rolling. I'm using this video as a time reference - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12aeYpTFLg
John comes in at :18 after he gets a brief feel for the song. At :32 the chords change for the chorus. He's still playing an E and switches to D when he realizes the chord is D. As a musician, this indicates to me that John is learning the song as it goes along. There's not a chance he'd be learning a tune like this while recording in 1971 or 72 when they had very limited studio time. The learning was done somewhere else.
We've put on our best historians' caps and we have several pieces of evidence strongly suggesting this is from 1977. All we have at this point is folklore suggesting it's 1971/72. I think we need to lay this one to rest until some tangible evidence comes to light. Otherwise it'd be like hanging onto the notion that everything in the bible is historically accurate despite the fact that there are credible historical sources that suggest otherwise in most cases. I think we're better than that.
Negative Creep
Sir GH wrote:
There definitely is bass on the recording we have, but it's far-fetched to suggest it was added on a later date. This is simply a jam and the tape is rolling. I'm using this video as a time reference - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12aeYpTFLg
John comes in at :18 after he gets a brief feel for the song. At :32 the chords change for the chorus. He's still playing an E and switches to D when he realizes the chord is D. As a musician, this indicates to me that John is learning the song as it goes along. There's not a chance he'd be learning a tune like this while recording in 1971 or 72 when they had very limited studio time. That was done somewhere else.
I haven't listened to the song for a long time - I was merely suggesting a possible scenario based on what someone else said. But saying that a bass line or anything on a recording couldn't be overdubbed isn't far-fetched at all, no matter how jammed something may appear to be.
There definitely is bass on the recording we have, but it's far-fetched to suggest it was added on a later date. This is simply a jam and the tape is rolling. I'm using this video as a time reference - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12aeYpTFLg
John comes in at :18 after he gets a brief feel for the song. At :32 the chords change for the chorus. He's still playing an E and switches to D when he realizes the chord is D. As a musician, this indicates to me that John is learning the song as it goes along. There's not a chance he'd be learning a tune like this while recording in 1971 or 72 when they had very limited studio time. That was done somewhere else.
I haven't listened to the song for a long time - I was merely suggesting a possible scenario based on what someone else said. But saying that a bass line or anything on a recording couldn't be overdubbed isn't far-fetched at all, no matter how jammed something may appear to be.
The Real Wizard
As a musician, can you pick out anything in the bass playing that may suggest it was overdubbed later? It seems pretty clear to me that they are playing as a 4-piece band at the same time and that the bass player is learning the song on the fly.
Negative Creep
As I'd already stated, my initial comment was based purely on someone elses comment. My comment regarding overdubbing was general. But, unless for example you can hear the snare wires responding to the bass frequencies etc, you have no way of fully knowing whether the bass was put down live or dubbed over it - no matter how bad you might think the playing is.
Just listened again and the versions available are of the band listening back to a playback (one version has just cut the intro off), for all you know they may have laid down the track whilst John wasn't there and the recording is of John practising over it or Brian just put a rough track down. And so who is Freddie saying doesn't know the song? He's saying that prior to playing back the track. They wouldn't bother trying to record something live if one of the band didn't know the song?! And if it's from 77 - it's more likely to be from a demo session than the actual NOTW sessions surely? Sonically different and they wouldn't be messing around with old songs that the band haven't played together properly.
Just listened again and the versions available are of the band listening back to a playback (one version has just cut the intro off), for all you know they may have laid down the track whilst John wasn't there and the recording is of John practising over it or Brian just put a rough track down. And so who is Freddie saying doesn't know the song? He's saying that prior to playing back the track. They wouldn't bother trying to record something live if one of the band didn't know the song?! And if it's from 77 - it's more likely to be from a demo session than the actual NOTW sessions surely? Sonically different and they wouldn't be messing around with old songs that the band haven't played together properly.
The Real Wizard
Negative Creep wrote:
"They wouldn't bother trying to record something live if one of the band didn't know the song?! And if it's from 77 - it's more likely to be from a demo session than the actual NOTW sessions surely? Sonically different and they wouldn't be messing around with old songs that the band haven't played together properly."
Questions like these are begging to be answered, but we know so little about Queen's creative process. So many gaps need to be filled in, i.e. with liner notes in a boxed set. Then we'll know if they did writing, demos, and recordings in separate sessions or not, and when.
"They wouldn't bother trying to record something live if one of the band didn't know the song?! And if it's from 77 - it's more likely to be from a demo session than the actual NOTW sessions surely? Sonically different and they wouldn't be messing around with old songs that the band haven't played together properly."
Questions like these are begging to be answered, but we know so little about Queen's creative process. So many gaps need to be filled in, i.e. with liner notes in a boxed set. Then we'll know if they did writing, demos, and recordings in separate sessions or not, and when.