JSS bought it from Jim Hutton. What further provenance do you need?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Reid_Special_98 wrote:
To be fair - I have no doubt that JSS owns the recording but I simply do not believe that the person playing it is Freddie. I am always skeptical.
I could say I have a tape of Brian May tuning his guitar ... but it could just be me tuning my guitar.
I agree with you because it is after all a fair question - so let me first answer with a rather stupid question...
Q: How do you know who your father is?
A: Because your mama told you so!
but - "my mama told me so" is not evidence - it's hearsay only, and not worth the paper it is written on!
But nowadays a more accurate test of paternity exists in the shape of DNA profiling; so unlike past generations - we now have a virtually fool-proof way of testing any such paternity claims.
Similar DNA or profiling tests can also be applied to the works of writers, artists and musicians. So passing-off a fraudulent work (or a forgery) of another artist may have been easier in times of old, but now because of technical advances it impossible.
So no more fake Mona Lisa's is the good news!
Your guitar tuning example is a red herring because I cannot play the guitar but I can still tune one up and pretend it is Brian May because there would be virtually no Brian May "identifiers" to examine my claim, so it would be easy for me to hide behind this absence of "fingerprints".
However this piano piece is extended and provides a wealth of scope to test for Freddie "identifiers" or "hallmarks" and both aural and "electrical spectrum" evidence suggest it is GENUINE because it has Freddie's "hallmarks" written all over it.
You see it is not just a case of picking up a Red-special set-up and playing like Brian May. That does not make one a Brian May.
Mental agility, physical dexterity, phrasing etc, etc are all naturally enshrined individualized subtleties which cannot be copied because in sum - (although others may SOUND like him) only Brian May can actually PLAY like Brian May.
So even if the best Brian May impersonators could fool most of the people most of the time, they could still be exposed under a detailed analysis.
My point is I agree with you. This could be a recording of Thierry Lang, Mike Moran or even Jim Hutton himself for all we know.
However, when analytically compared against Freddie's oeuvre; this track (and the others on the tape) have all stood up to the scrutiny of time and no one has ever been able to say "This is not Freddie". Indeed the reverse is true.
I am not an expert in this field. All I have to go on is Jim Hutton's word - which as you so correctly point out is hearsay.
However, now this tape is publicly available anyone can have it analyzed in anyway they want; and what they will discover is that this is indeed Freddie - because at the end of the day - only Freddie could play like Freddie!
Get out of here John, with your common sense and reasoned argument!! :-)
Don't really want to sound like a cynic here, but I think we can safely rule out Thierry Lang because, sorry, he's quite simply a better pianist than the person playing on this recording. It's a good performance, but by no means flawless. Just like Freddie was a good pianist, but not a virtuoso one.
Cheers and well said JSS. Thanks for the spirit of your reply.
Again - the recording is quite interesting.
Best regards all.
Again - the recording is quite interesting.
Best regards all.
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
Don't really want to sound like a cynic here, but I think we can safely rule out Thierry Lang because, sorry, he's quite simply a better pianist than the person playing on this recording. It's a good performance, but by no means flawless. Just like Freddie was a good pianist, but not a virtuoso one.
Yes, and the same reasoning rules out people like Mike Moran and Fred Mandel. Freddie (Bulsara/Mercury) was a very good pianist, but those others were/are a hell of a lot better.
John S Stuart wrote:
So even if the best Brian May impersonators could fool most of the people most of the time, they could still be exposed under a detailed analysis.
In an ideal world yes, but people performing said detailed analyses can also be biased or mistaken. Check TV-Tropes for a comprehensive list of 'reality is unrealistic' anecdotes (e.g., Tim Curry being thrown out of a cinema because people thought he was a Tim Curry impersonator).
We're so used to the Brian May we hear (mostly) on the records that a blind test comparing him with an imitator could yield surprising results. Hugh Jackman dressed himself as wolverine at Comic-Con last year and people failed to recognise him; someone even said he was 'too tall' to be 'the real one.'
So, while I absolutely categorically one-hundred-and-ten-percent agree with you and see where you're coming from, keep in mind that those analysis techniques aren't error-proof and people behind said researches (me included, of course) are inherently flawed and biased. The best Brian-May-fingerprint-identifier in the world could still deem a genuine recording as fake, or vice-versa, just as Brian May himself could do it (need I remind everyone of his memory slips again?). I'm not targeting Brian, despite what some may think, I'm just using him as an example. The same could be said about John, Roger, Freddie (if he were still alive), etc.
John Deacon once heard the Flash Gordon OST and failed to realise it was his own band.
My two cents...
This is one of those times where the standard of proof needs to be very high, because I think we can agree that no one here wants the known Freddie Mercury catalogue of recordings cluttered with fakes. The burden of proof is on John S. Stuart, not on the skeptics. Challenging the claim that this is a recording of Freddie Mercury is vital to maintaining accurate knowledge.
I learned long ago not to take anything for granted. I require hard evidence, or at least a variety of independently verifiable objective sources. In this case, the following things would help support the claim that this is Freddie playing these tracks:
- documentation from Jim Hutton (a letter detailing Jim's claim that it's Freddie, a receipt of sale from Jim to at least verify the source, etc.)
- Other expert witnesses from Freddie's personal life (Peter Freestone, Mike Moran or someone who can authoritatively comment on Freddie's knowledge of/interest in these songs)
- Brian May, Roger Taylor and/or John Deacon's thoughts on the performance and the tracks themselves (after all, they recorded and performed together for 20 years and can offer insights far greater than fan analyses)
Right now, with only John's claim as to its source and authenticity, I am skeptical. That doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea (I'm not, I want more FM recordings as much as any fan) or that I think it's a fake. All I can say is that it has not been proven to my satisfaction.
This is one of those times where the standard of proof needs to be very high, because I think we can agree that no one here wants the known Freddie Mercury catalogue of recordings cluttered with fakes. The burden of proof is on John S. Stuart, not on the skeptics. Challenging the claim that this is a recording of Freddie Mercury is vital to maintaining accurate knowledge.
I learned long ago not to take anything for granted. I require hard evidence, or at least a variety of independently verifiable objective sources. In this case, the following things would help support the claim that this is Freddie playing these tracks:
- documentation from Jim Hutton (a letter detailing Jim's claim that it's Freddie, a receipt of sale from Jim to at least verify the source, etc.)
- Other expert witnesses from Freddie's personal life (Peter Freestone, Mike Moran or someone who can authoritatively comment on Freddie's knowledge of/interest in these songs)
- Brian May, Roger Taylor and/or John Deacon's thoughts on the performance and the tracks themselves (after all, they recorded and performed together for 20 years and can offer insights far greater than fan analyses)
Right now, with only John's claim as to its source and authenticity, I am skeptical. That doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea (I'm not, I want more FM recordings as much as any fan) or that I think it's a fake. All I can say is that it has not been proven to my satisfaction.
Ryeking "The burden of proof is on John S. Stuart, not on the skeptics. Challenging the claim that this is a recording of Freddie Mercury is vital to maintaining accurate knowledge".
Sorry but that is a very poor stance to take because the burden of proof is NOT mine to make - because I do not have it, and can not provide it - but that does NOT prove it is NOT Freddie!
I bought the tape from Jim Hutton in good faith; and that is all the proof I have. Of course it would be nice to have more, but I for one actually believe Jim. If others do not - that is not my problem.
If this had been an unknown Picasso painting which I bought from a from reputable a dealer in the same good faith; it would be up to the "experts" to prove it false - not up to me to prove it genuine.
This tape is what it is - if anyone else can prove this is a fake; I would be interested in listening to their reasoning.
Sorry but that is a very poor stance to take because the burden of proof is NOT mine to make - because I do not have it, and can not provide it - but that does NOT prove it is NOT Freddie!
I bought the tape from Jim Hutton in good faith; and that is all the proof I have. Of course it would be nice to have more, but I for one actually believe Jim. If others do not - that is not my problem.
If this had been an unknown Picasso painting which I bought from a from reputable a dealer in the same good faith; it would be up to the "experts" to prove it false - not up to me to prove it genuine.
This tape is what it is - if anyone else can prove this is a fake; I would be interested in listening to their reasoning.
***
Ryeking "The burden of proof is on John S. Stuart, not on the skeptics. Challenging the claim that this is a recording of Freddie Mercury is vital to maintaining accurate knowledge".
Sorry but that is a very poor stance to take because the burden of proof is NOT mine to make - because I do not have it, and can not provide it - but that does NOT prove it is NOT Freddie!
***
We're presented with a recording claimed to be Freddie playing some songs on piano and are told by you it came from Jim Hutton. It is not unreasonable, nor a "poor stance," to ask you to prove either of those two details. You say you can't and shouldn't have to, and ask us to take your claim at face value. I can't do that, either as a fan or a researcher of the group's work. Being able to prove with evidence, to support any important claim made to others about something that is unknown to them is a fundamental requirement of that claim. That is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. He or she must prove that what they say is accurate and factual. This is the reason it is the basis for legal systems, as well as all disciplines of serious research (scientific, historical, etc.). Research into Queen is important to all of us here and no one is above the burden of proof when offering fellow fans something as important as previously unreleased, undocumented material. I hold myself to this standard, as well, especially having co-written a book on them. I would expect you and every other fan to question me and ask for proof if I were to suddenly make something like this Jim Hutton Tape available. If all I could say is "[Person who is no longer alive] sold it to me, but I have no documentation or anything to support what I'm telling you," I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to simply take my word for it.
That's all I really have to say on this subject unless/until something more substantive is offered in the way of supporting evidence.
Ryeking "The burden of proof is on John S. Stuart, not on the skeptics. Challenging the claim that this is a recording of Freddie Mercury is vital to maintaining accurate knowledge".
Sorry but that is a very poor stance to take because the burden of proof is NOT mine to make - because I do not have it, and can not provide it - but that does NOT prove it is NOT Freddie!
***
We're presented with a recording claimed to be Freddie playing some songs on piano and are told by you it came from Jim Hutton. It is not unreasonable, nor a "poor stance," to ask you to prove either of those two details. You say you can't and shouldn't have to, and ask us to take your claim at face value. I can't do that, either as a fan or a researcher of the group's work. Being able to prove with evidence, to support any important claim made to others about something that is unknown to them is a fundamental requirement of that claim. That is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. He or she must prove that what they say is accurate and factual. This is the reason it is the basis for legal systems, as well as all disciplines of serious research (scientific, historical, etc.). Research into Queen is important to all of us here and no one is above the burden of proof when offering fellow fans something as important as previously unreleased, undocumented material. I hold myself to this standard, as well, especially having co-written a book on them. I would expect you and every other fan to question me and ask for proof if I were to suddenly make something like this Jim Hutton Tape available. If all I could say is "[Person who is no longer alive] sold it to me, but I have no documentation or anything to support what I'm telling you," I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to simply take my word for it.
That's all I really have to say on this subject unless/until something more substantive is offered in the way of supporting evidence.
Ryeking: I accept your position; and you are entitled to your opinion, but that does not prove anything either way.
In my opinion it is genuine.
In your opinion it is not.
Not quite a stalemate - but that's how it stands.
As for corrupting the gene pool; if you look back at the beginning of this thread you will see that it was not me who "released" it; nor was it released with my "blessing".
I just chipped in later with the background to clarify for the record how this tape came to be, and that this tape was known to be in my existence BEFORE the death of Jim Hutton.
The fact that someone else recently released it does not make it new or exciting. Indeed from where I sit, it is very old hat.
As I said previously; If I bought a genuine Picasso in good faith; that does not make it so. So on one hand I do not need the proof because I retain the artifact regardless.
If others seek OBJECTIVE truth; and not subjective, I still stand by the "only Freddie could play like Freddie claim" after all Picasso experts have often been surprised by people who thought they had reproductions - when in fact they owned the genuine item.
I am sure it would be easy to verify if these had those Freddie fingerprints or not.
In my opinion it is genuine.
In your opinion it is not.
Not quite a stalemate - but that's how it stands.
As for corrupting the gene pool; if you look back at the beginning of this thread you will see that it was not me who "released" it; nor was it released with my "blessing".
I just chipped in later with the background to clarify for the record how this tape came to be, and that this tape was known to be in my existence BEFORE the death of Jim Hutton.
The fact that someone else recently released it does not make it new or exciting. Indeed from where I sit, it is very old hat.
As I said previously; If I bought a genuine Picasso in good faith; that does not make it so. So on one hand I do not need the proof because I retain the artifact regardless.
If others seek OBJECTIVE truth; and not subjective, I still stand by the "only Freddie could play like Freddie claim" after all Picasso experts have often been surprised by people who thought they had reproductions - when in fact they owned the genuine item.
I am sure it would be easy to verify if these had those Freddie fingerprints or not.
rhyeking wrote:
My two cents...
This is one of those times where the standard of proof needs to be very high, because I think we can agree that no one here wants the known Freddie Mercury catalogue of recordings cluttered with fakes. The burden of proof is on John S. Stuart, not on the skeptics. Challenging the claim that this is a recording of Freddie Mercury is vital to maintaining accurate knowledge.
I learned long ago not to take anything for granted. I require hard evidence, or at least a variety of independently verifiable objective sources. In this case, the following things would help support the claim that this is Freddie playing these tracks:
- documentation from Jim Hutton (a letter detailing Jim's claim that it's Freddie, a receipt of sale from Jim to at least verify the source, etc.)
- Other expert witnesses from Freddie's personal life (Peter Freestone, Mike Moran or someone who can authoritatively comment on Freddie's knowledge of/interest in these songs)
- Brian May, Roger Taylor and/or John Deacon's thoughts on the performance and the tracks themselves (after all, they recorded and performed together for 20 years and can offer insights far greater than fan analyses)
Right now, with only John's claim as to its source and authenticity, I am skeptical. That doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea (I'm not, I want more FM recordings as much as any fan) or that I think it's a fake. All I can say is that it has not been proven to my satisfaction.
Just my two cents:
Rhyeking - if JH tries to sell you this recording, what proof do you need from him to be convinced that it was Freddie playing ?
To me this does sound like Freddie playing. The thing is, I really can't imagine him playing this sort of thing in its entirety at his home. And, in the case of the Amazing Grace recording, I REALLY can't imagine him playing that at all. It's just not in character for him.
rhyeking wrote:
Being able to prove with evidence, to support any important claim made to others about something that is unknown to them is a fundamental requirement of that claim. That is why the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. He or she must prove that what they say is accurate and factual.
Well said. I agree completely. Of all you've written in this forum, which has routinely been in a very high quality standard, this is arguably your best post IMO.
rhyeking wrote:
...no one is above the burden of proof when offering fellow fans something as important as previously unreleased, undocumented material.
Exactly!
rhyeking wrote:
If all I could say is "[Person who is no longer alive] sold it to me, but I have no documentation or anything to support what I'm telling you," I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to simply take my word for it.
I can see where you're coming from. By the way I do believe it's Freddie playing, but all I can offer is my opinion. Nothing more.
John S Stuart wrote:
In my opinion it is genuine.
In your opinion it is not.
To be fair, and this is a key point, Rhyeking is not saying it's not genuine; they're saying it hasn't been proved to be genuine (not the same claim at all).
John S Stuart wrote:
I am sure it would be easy to verify if these had those Freddie fingerprints or not.
As a matter of fact, it's not easy, for reasons mentioned earlier (by me and other posters, from different perspectives). I still believe it's Freddie, but all I can offer is my opinion (some would even consider it an 'expert' opinion, but I don't think it is, not for this particular subject).
tcc wrote:
Rhyeking - if JH tries to sell you this recording, what proof do you need from him to be convinced that it was Freddie playing ?
TBF, that point's quite irrelevant considering he's dead ... but we all know what happened to Barry Mitchell's tape, not to mention the amount of officially-endorsed false claims, incorrect or incomplete liner notes, memory slips by all band members (not just Brian, I'm not just vilifying him), fake autographs sold via 'official' channels, etc.
Costa86 wrote:
To me this does sound like Freddie playing. The thing is, I really can't imagine him playing this sort of thing in its entirety at his home. And, in the case of the Amazing Grace recording, I REALLY can't imagine him playing that at all. It's just not in character for him.
To be fair, none of us knew Freddie, so we can't really judge from his officially released output. People do have different personalities on- and off-work, especially artists. There's nothing to suggest Fred wouldn't like to play those songs, just like there's nothing to suggest he would. The fact he wasn't Christian didn't mean he wouldn't know, or occasionally play, 'Amazing Grace.'
Like Rhyeking and Sebastian, I back up the point that the issue is not around whether it is believed to be genuinely Freddie (it seems that the overwhelming majority believe it is), but there simply is no proof that that is the case.
I'll just add that I have no reason to doubt John's claim that he got it from Jim Hutton, but we have no proof of this, and equally this provenance on its own is not enough to guarantee it's Freddie playing. From a purely objective, historical standpoint, this can't be 'proven' to be Freddie playing based solely on John's (even though honest) statement.
If we take the same token of an individual's word, then the poster here called 'Roger's untidy Bottom' claims to have been present in and around the Queen camp for an extensive time around the late 70s and early 80s, and categorically states that 'The Game' was slated to be a double album, and tracks were writtne and recorded to that effect. Do I take take him at his word and categorically state for FACT that there are loads of unreleased 'The Game' tracks in the archives because he says he witnessed this first hand?
Finally though, it is great that the possibility of this kind of recording existing and being discussed, and I hope now that others (the archivists, Peter Freestone, the band, Peter Straker etc..) can be perrsuaded to comment and substantiate, lend credence to, or perhaps even refute, the so far one piece of 'evidence' that points to this being Freddie.
I'll just add that I have no reason to doubt John's claim that he got it from Jim Hutton, but we have no proof of this, and equally this provenance on its own is not enough to guarantee it's Freddie playing. From a purely objective, historical standpoint, this can't be 'proven' to be Freddie playing based solely on John's (even though honest) statement.
If we take the same token of an individual's word, then the poster here called 'Roger's untidy Bottom' claims to have been present in and around the Queen camp for an extensive time around the late 70s and early 80s, and categorically states that 'The Game' was slated to be a double album, and tracks were writtne and recorded to that effect. Do I take take him at his word and categorically state for FACT that there are loads of unreleased 'The Game' tracks in the archives because he says he witnessed this first hand?
Finally though, it is great that the possibility of this kind of recording existing and being discussed, and I hope now that others (the archivists, Peter Freestone, the band, Peter Straker etc..) can be perrsuaded to comment and substantiate, lend credence to, or perhaps even refute, the so far one piece of 'evidence' that points to this being Freddie.