The only thing we can be sure is that everything here is speculation, some people arguing with better evidence than others, but until we have an official statement of someone who was there at the sessions, nobody can say "This recording is from XXX session, XXXX year". So I agree that , bottom line, nobody has a clue.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Well, this is the very nature (and beauty) of research. Some things can't be confirmed, so we have to use our best tools and judgement to narrow down to the best possible answer.
If we can't rely on this method for figuring out when a song was recorded, then we might as well throw out all of our history books too and stick to the bible instead of listening to guys like Stephen Hawking about the origin of the universe.
Not that I'm comparing myself to him, but you get the gist..
Thistle · Member since
This is the first time I've actually taken part in the SS debate, so please excuse my ignorance on it, and for asking questions that may have been answered before. Tbh, it's not a track that interested me much after the first few listens, and it had been a long time since I had listened to it (until this thread). Again, I've tried a bit of research, but the arguments have always been the same.
I personally am not ignoring anyone's views on it. Like I say, the '77 argument carries a lot of weight, and probably is evidence. I say probably, because I don't share the same knowledge of musical instruments, so could actually be being told anything at all - I'd have no clue on whether or not it was right. I'm not a disbeliever of any camp, but am really keen to hear what the "evidence" is from the early 70s group. So far, they're the ones who haven't come up with much.
Somebody, somewhere, must be able to say for 100% certainty - and by this I mean the physical recording, dated. (well, one would hope this is a possibility)
Thistle · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Ozz wrote:[/b]
The only thing we can be sure is that everything here is speculation, some people arguing with better evidence than others, but until we have an official statement of someone who was there at the sessions, nobody can say "This recording is from XXX session, XXXX year". So I agree that , bottom line, nobody has a clue.[/QUOTE]
Almost there. There are "clues" (or else the group claiming 77 wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion), but at the end of the day, even this is still an educated guess. I'm still not saying that either party is wrong, until there is something concrete on it.
Pim Derks · Member since
Not related to Silver Salmon, but has anyone seen this?
An acetate for an apparently planned (?) EP containing four songs from Queen II. Real or fake?
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Walter White wrote:[/b]
This is the first time I've actually taken part in the SS debate, so please excuse my ignorance on it, and for asking questions that may have been answered before.[/QUOTE]
It's all good. Sorry if I came across heavy handed toward you - absolutely not my intent.
It's the people who have been arguing time and time again for an earlier date with no real evidence to support their claim who continue to baffle me.
brians wig · Member since
Ok. Coming back to a question I asked earlier which seems to have been overlooked: IS anybody playing Bass in SS?
If so, then who is it?
IF it's JD, then that begs the question: Who is Freddie referring to who "doesn't know it"?
Could it be Jim Beach who took over as manager in '78?
mooghead · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Gregsynth wrote:[/b]
The only thing that would cause a sound like that (the break with overtones) is something impairing the vocal cords (nodules, polyps, etc). [/QUOTE]
Maybe it was just the first thing he sang that day? Or the last thing he sang that night? Or he just had a hot curry, or swigged from a bottle of vodka. Are you saying Freddie nailed every vocal first time? Hard luck for a 'Anthology' full of out takes then..
Gregsynth · Member since
Nodes are very unpredictable Moog. He may have sang this early on, or towards the end of the sessions. It would be cool to get an actual date and time from these sessions!
That's the fun thing about listening to the out-takes, raw takes, and early versions of songs. You can hear differences between those and the official product that's out on the shelves.
The main reason why I mentioned the vocal break is because it's a certain kind of vocal break that occurs with an impairment of the vocal cords (nodules). Of course anybody without nodes can crack or break notes, but having nodes in addition to that causes "diplophonia" where the vocal cords vibrate at two different speeds (causing two different pitches to emit) due to the nodule or polyp interfering with the freely vibrating cords.
Thistle · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Walter White wrote:[/b]
This is the first time I've actually taken part in the SS debate, so please excuse my ignorance on it, and for asking questions that may have been answered before.[/QUOTE]
It's all good. Sorry if I came across heavy handed toward you - absolutely not my intent.
[/QUOTE]
I know Bob. Would never have taken it that way :)
GT · Member since
Just to continue an earlier point. The band would very often play around in the studio to new songs and even old songs before they would get down to actually recording new tracks for an album. Tracks like Feelings and Silver Salmon were often played in a band jam and they would even play other artists songs as part of this warm up. This is a scenario for the majority of all artists I expect.
cmsdrums · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]GT wrote:[/b]
Just to continue an earlier point. The band would very often play around in the studio to new songs and even old songs before they would get down to actually recording new tracks for an album. Tracks like Feelings and Silver Salmon were often played in a band jam and they would even play other artists songs as part of this warm up. This is a scenario for the majority of all artists I expect.
[/QUOTE]
Cheers Gary - Whilst it now seems clear you don't want to/aren't able to confirm the actual date of the recorded version of SS we have heard, this is a nice nugget of info.
If they had tapes recording whilst warming up (and by Gary declaring this info then I'm guessing that is so as he wasn't there at the time), this says to me that there may be, potentially, studio recordings in existence of them warming up in 1990 playing Keep Yourself Alive and Killer Queen, or equally warm ups in 1978 of them playing songs by Zep, Beatles, The Who etc...
Broad examples yes, but you get my drift....
Supersonic_Man89 · Member since
I think the fact we 100% knoe they played and sang Sheer Heart Attack for the NOTW sessions, suggests they were thinking about old tracks which got forgotten whilst compiling NOTW. Also, Mercury had written WATC years before, so again another 'old' song recorded for NOTW. Trying an old song like Silver Salmon doesn't seem out of the ordinary in that regard.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Pim Derks wrote:[/b]
Not related to Silver Salmon, but has anyone seen this?
An acetate for an apparently planned (?) EP containing four songs from Queen II. Real or fake?[/QUOTE]
If it's real, it's a strange thing indeed - radio only? Mono (pretty much entirely obsolete since '67)? Three Freddie-tracks to one Brian track?
Then again, if it's fake, somebody's put in a LOT of work to do it right - the ageing of the label, the corrected spelling mistake in White Queen, correct type of stamp, a seller who's been active on eBay for almost 15 years and has a 98,8% positive rating...
I'm leaning towards real but weird.
Thistle · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Pim Derks wrote:[/b]
Not related to Silver Salmon, but has anyone seen this?
An acetate for an apparently planned (?) EP containing four songs from Queen II. Real or fake?[/QUOTE]
If it's real, it's a strange thing indeed - radio only? Mono (pretty much entirely obsolete since '67)? Three Freddie-tracks to one Brian track?
Then again, if it's fake, somebody's put in a LOT of work to do it right - the ageing of the label, the corrected spelling mistake in White Queen, correct type of stamp, a seller who's been active on eBay for almost 15 years and has a 98,8% positive rating...
I'm leaning towards real but weird.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure, but a few things of concern:
1 - this particular seller seems to deal exclusively in acetates. A lot of them are in the "blow your mind" kind of category, i.e unreleased Queen, Beatles, Sabbath, Dylan etc. All big names - all unreleased edits. I've had/seen a few acetates in my time, and they all tend to be the released version - his tend to be variants.
2 - For a seller with 1000+ feedback, he doesn't appear to have been overly active in the past year, but active enough to make some big bucks from "one-offs".
3 - Although he has only one negative FB out of this 1000+, said feedback claims he sold a "fake". One is enough to cast doubt.
4 - I've never seen an acetate that claims that the record can't actually be pressed until copyright has been explored.
Again, I'm not saying that this IS a fake - the guy could collect and deal exclusively in this range, and all are legit.
It's such a tricky area: for the amount of cash trading hands in these deals, it would be a big gamble for some. For those with very deep pockets however, this could just be like us buying a £10 bootleg.
A lot of work HAS gone into it. But, then again, if you were getting £1000+ for a boot you made, wouldn't YOU go to the bother??
