| crazy duck 14.01.2014 07:41 |
I think I may be opening a can of worms here but can anyone give me a date when the track was recorded? I hear so many different opinions. I think freds voice sounds like 77/78 era but I keep seeing it credited as an earlier demo. If im right about the date then is it a NOTW demo? |
| Thistle 14.01.2014 08:35 |
It's been a while since I heard this track, but I always had a couple of questions myself about it: 1 - the version I have (commonly available) starts off with a bit of conversation. I've always been a bit sceptical about this, and thought it was added in, as the track then starts abruptly. Is this version a faked one? Or is that conversation actually part of the recording? 2 - going on the basis that the conversation is real, can we place it in the very early 70s era? I say this because I'm sure Freddie says "I know he doesn't know it" (or something along those lines). Could he be referring to a new bassist? (For some reason, I took it that way when I first heard it. But that's assuming the conversation belongs to the same recording). 3- If that wild theory is correct, wouldn't that place it somewhere between 70-71? 4 - if it is so early, who penned it? It could be a Smile track..... Of course, those questions were in my mind long before Fanthology's "Chapter One". They're forwarding the notion that this is a Tim Staffell track, although I'm not sure if this alone is just guesswork, inside knowledge or concrete fact as the source is not explained. Without the above post, I'd personally say it sounds early as Fred's vocals sound similar to the "Polar Bear" takes. Either way, Crazy Duck's right - there has been a lot of opinion/ rumour about it. Can anyone definitively clear this up? (as "Fanthology" have not quoted sources). |
| brENsKi 14.01.2014 10:30 |
i know it was BEFORE 1992 :-) in all seriousness i'm sure i heard (on QZ) it was a very early queen song from the recording sessions for the first album??? because it used to be fondly referred to as being part of the "bible trilogy" "jesus", "mad the swine" and "silver salmon" i used to think these were all freddie compositions - but i'm sure i read somewhere (on here) some time ago that Brian was claiming the writing credit for it....(is there any song he doesn't claim?) EDIT: found original QZ thread: link |
| Sebastian 14.01.2014 10:32 |
The song is Tim's and the recording's from 1977. 'He doesn't know it' refers to John, not because he was new (he'd been in the band six years by then) but because he didn't know the song (as it was, indeed, a Smile song, and John never saw that band). Before anyone comes up with the lame argument of 'why would they play an old song?', remember that there's no rule against it. Actually, LOADS of people suddenly break into old songs, either their own or covers they used to play in the early days, etc. It's part of human nature, that sense of nostalgia and/or 'let's give that one another go.' The Beatles laid down most of You Know My Name in 1967 and added the vocals twenty-two months later; they also recorded The One After 909 in 1963 and revisited it in 1969; What Goes On existed for at least two or three years before they did the version that got on the album; The Eagles included a re-recording of a several-year-old (previously unreleased) song on their big comeback album; Brian May himself commented he'd written Why Don't We Try Again during Queen (i.e. Freddie) years but saved it for much later; McCartney re-recorded Eleanor Rigby, For No-One and Yesterday, at some point, long after Lennon had died; Queen re-recorded Keep Yourself Alive in 1975. Queen album sessions, for what we know (which is still limited) were largely (but not entirely) filled with new and fresh material, but it doesn't mean it was forbidden or a physical impossibility for them to make an occasional exception and try out old ideas that may have not been ready before and/or for one reason or another hadn't seen the light of day. Remember when Brian included Too Much Love on his solo album, half a decade after the Queen version was recorded? In that case, same as in Silver Salmon from 1977, the fact it was previously unreleased may have also played a role in the songs being granted a place in such late sessions. |
| dave76 14.01.2014 11:03 |
Agree with Sebastian. It sounds more like '77 to me too listening to Freddie's voice and Roger's drumkit. The News Of The World album was a raw album and this song could be recorded during those sessions as it also has a raw feeling to it. |
| Thistle 14.01.2014 11:29 |
Just listened back, and the conversation actually refers to "Silver Salmon" (I couldn't recall if it did or not at the time of posting, sorry...). But, to me, it still starts really abruptly, and I'm not convinced it was recorded that way - could the circulated version be a hybrid of two separate recordings? Or just some weird edit of one take? Thanks to Seb for clearing up that "he doesn't know it" does refer to John :) But still not entirely convinced that it's as late as '77/'78. What's your source for that please, Seb? (Not that I'm siding with Fanthology's notes on it, as they haven't quoted a source either....) |
| Thistle 14.01.2014 11:34 |
According to Fanthology notes, this Tim Staffell track is another Sci-fi based track. Seemed to be order of the day back then.....wonder if it's Bowie influenced in any way? |
| Sebastian 14.01.2014 11:46 |
It comes from the same sessions as 'Feelings'. |
| Thistle 14.01.2014 12:12 |
^ Okay, I'm not a disbeliever lol. But what's your source for that info? I'm seeing plenty of statements from all over the joint (Tim wrote it, Brian wrote it, it's part of Freddie's "Bible" trilogy......it's from the early 70s, it's from the late 70s.....) but no sources. I've been searching since this topic came up, but all the material is contradictory :( Fanthology notes match up to my own thoughts from when I first heard the track, but again, no source to clarify for certain. I don't know what's right and what's not, hehe - the only things I'm sure about are that it's a Staffell track and it was before 1992 :p And still not sure about why it's so abrupt, if it's a merge or what..... |
| mooghead 14.01.2014 12:16 |
Why can't people just admit they don't have a clue? |
| Thistle 14.01.2014 12:22 |
mooghead wrote: Why can't people just admit they don't have a clue?There's loads of conflicting information about it - but surely someone has the right source (out-with the band that is. Even then, there'd be doubts haha). |
| mooghead 14.01.2014 12:29 |
Walter White wrote:Theres no information about it, thats the problem... its just guesses....mooghead wrote: Why can't people just admit they don't have a clue?There's loads of conflicting information about it |
| Raffy 14.01.2014 12:37 |
If you ask me I stay true to the "recorded in 1977" theory. Take a listen to this corrected speed version on youtube: link This is clearly Freddie's voice back in 1977, very similar to the "Bbc sessions" and "Feelings" kinda of voice. The song was probably written in late 1969 - early 1970 by Tim Staffel for Smile then left to Bri & Rog who surely added something instrumentally. Possibiliities are that they rhearsed the piece back in 1970-'71 with Freddie before John joined the band (so it's explained the sentence "I know he doesn't know it") then it was retaken in 1977 'cause it was more suitable for the "News Of The World" album (like the song "Sheer Heart Attack", originally tought for the homonymous album). Then for "God knows what reason" ('cause again if you ask me it sounds really promising) was discarded (maybe they preferred the charmless "Who Needs You" only to satisfy John by introducing one of his composition besides the wonderful "Spread Your Wings"... talking about delicate internal band balances). I don't think they ever played it live in concert back in 1970-early '71 'cause it sounds too much "work in progress". |
| Raffy 14.01.2014 12:47 |
... and maybe a complete version with full lyrics and instrumental parts exists and it will be released on the new Queen album ;) wink wink ;) |
| Raffy 14.01.2014 12:57 |
Another clue: link listen to Feelings Feelings (Take 10, July 1977). Drums sounds exactly the same as the very one contained in this track... The track was recorded in 1977 no doubt about it for sure ;) |
| crazy duck 14.01.2014 13:32 |
I agree raffy it sounds like fred ala 77/78 for sure. but as walter white says there is so much out there its impossible to know whats what. When I first heard that song (as a collector of boots) it sounded like a live song with the crowd noise taken away you know like those old crood bootlegs were they take away a channel to make it sound like a demo. So asumed the talk at the beginning was part of freds stage banter left on. Now im not so sure what what the hell it is . I told you it was gonna be a can of worms!!!! |
| Queen1973 14.01.2014 13:43 |
I agree the track is pre queen days. but possible recorded in 1977. |
| Wilki Amieva 14.01.2014 14:44 |
The track is definetely written by Timothy John Staffell. Is credited as such on the Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) archives. Now, I BELIEVE it's a 1977 recording, mostly for the drum kit and sound. |
| The Real Wizard 14.01.2014 15:42 |
mooghead wrote:True. But this is where research comes in. If archaeologists and paleontologists can put together a solid picture of the Mesozoic era, then surely a few of us can pin down when a song was recorded.Walter White wrote:Theres no information about it, thats the problem... its just guesses....mooghead wrote: Why can't people just admit they don't have a clue?There's loads of conflicting information about it 100%, this recording is from 1977. This has been discussed so many times here. Yes, the song was written by Tim Staffell, but the song was revisited in 1977 when Queen were stripping down their sound for News Of The World. The drum kit has timbales, which were only on Roger's NOTW kit. That alone is all the evidence you need to point it to the summer of 77. Of course it's possible that Roger had a similar setup at some other time, but until evidence comes forth to suggest the possibility, then 1977 is the only logical conclusion at this point. |
| Sebastian 14.01.2014 16:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote: The drum kit has timbales, which were only on Roger's NOTW kit.'Misfire' has timbales and was both recorded and released three years before NotW. Now, 'Silver Salmon' is from 1977 (that version, that is), but the timbales are not the reason, let alone the sole reason. The Real Wizard wrote: Of course it's possible that Roger had a similar setup at some other time, but until evidence comes forth to suggest the possibility.There's evidence in the form of the song 'Misfire', available on millions of SHA albums out there in different formats (vinyl, cassette, CD, iTunes). Now, 'Silver Salmon' is from 1977 (that version, that is), but the timbales are not the reason, let alone the sole reason. |
| Thistle 14.01.2014 16:35 |
So the general consensus is 1977, but the reasons why are still conflicting (and still no sources, unless you happen to know one drum from another....which I DON'T. I just let those who DO put the music together and if I like it, then great!!) Fuck it.....I'm phoning John Deacon for answers :) |
| Jam Monkey 14.01.2014 16:49 |
Sebastian wrote: Before anyone comes up with the lame argument of 'why would they play an old song?', remember that there's no rule against it.That's true, although the examples you give are of artists revisiting/re-recording their own tracks. I am just trying to imagine the scene, "Guys, we've got 5 hit albums under our belts, and we've always written our own tracks*, but you know what, why don't record that song Tim wrote back in the day..." *Before someone points it out, I know Tim Staffell co-wrote Doing All Right |
| Jazz 78 14.01.2014 19:48 |
The drums are consistent with the NOTW sessions. As The Real Wizard stated, Roger was using the Ludwig timbales but also you can hear a china type cymbal in there which I believe Roger didn't acquire til the ADATR sessions. The banter at he beginning of Freddie saying, "I know he doesn't know it" I'm guessing "maybe" Silver Salmon was rehearsed before John Deacon joined the band. It could have been put on a back burner and forgotten. Possibly during the NOTW sessions they decided to salvage the song and introduce John to it. Just a thought... |
| Sheer Brass Neck 14.01.2014 21:32 |
Jazz 78 wrote: The banter at he beginning of Freddie saying, "I know he doesn't know it" I'm guessing "maybe" Silver Salmon was rehearsed before John Deacon joined the band. It could have been put on a back burner and forgotten. Possibly during the NOTW sessions they decided to salvage the song and introduce John to it. Just a thought...Or, it's 1973 and John is the newbie unfamiliar with Silver Salmon? |
| Benn Kempster 15.01.2014 03:45 |
Sheer Brass Neck, Exactly. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 15.01.2014 09:57 |
Untill 2011 no-one ever claimed the KYA long lost retake was from 75.... hate to spoil the fun , but the SS is from 72-73 !Comes from the very same reel as PB |
| brians wig 15.01.2014 10:22 |
This is an interesting thread and one which will keep going forever until Greg Brooks pipes up and confirms one of the many theories. I first heard this track back in 2001 (?) at Greg's very first archive session - a session which, as you all should know by now, was recorded by a member of the audience and leaked a year later under the highly amusing and ironic title of "Committing Robbery" (Robbery being one of the tracks played at said convention). THIS recording, sadly, had Greg's banter between tracks edited out to make it more listenable as an 'album' as opposed to a historical record of an event, so I have only my faded/jaded memory to go by and that of any one else who may have been there at the time. MY memory tells me that Greg said it stemmed from the early 1970's. However, the BIG question is this: is the nice clean "studio quality" version we've all heard the exact same recording as the one played at Convention? (I can't check as I don't have the convention recording to hand). BUT, as GWAS has just stated, it was apparantly on the same reel as Polar Bear. The other interesting thing is that it was played virtually back to back with another track called "Feelings" (NOT to be confused with Feelings, Feelings from the NOTW sessions) which was recorded during the exact same session almost straight after SS. Sadly, "Feelings" has never surfaced in decent quality. |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2014 10:30 |
If they were on the same reel then that's one hell of a coincidence that they picked those same reels for a session 5 years later. FFS, the song is from 1977. The drums, reverb, EQ, mixing, panning, EVERYTHING is absolutely identical to Feelings Feelings, which is from 1977. Never mind the obvious observation that Mercury's voice is way too developed for it to be anything earlier. I can't believe this is even being discussed, again.. And the Feelings jam is also from the same session. Same drum kit, same everything. |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 15.01.2014 10:54 |
The Real Wizard wrote: If they were on the same reel then that's one hell of a coincidence that they picked those same reels for a session 5 years later. FFS, the song is from 1977. The drums, reverb, EQ, mixing, panning, EVERYTHING is absolutely identical to Feelings Feelings, which is from 1977. Never mind the obvious observation that Mercury's voice is way too developed for it to be anything earlier. I can't believe this is even being discussed, again.. And the Feelings jam is also from the same session. Same drum kit, same everything.Interesting points but incorrect ! |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2014 11:01 |
So what's your counter-evidence then? |
| Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 15.01.2014 11:02 |
The Real Wizard wrote: So what's your counter-evidence then?it is on the same reel.... |
| Jam Monkey 15.01.2014 11:26 |
brians wig wrote: This is an interesting thread and one which will keep going forever until Greg Brooks pipes up and confirms one of the many theories. I first heard this track back in 2001 (?) at Greg's very first archive session - a session which, as you all should know by now, was recorded by a member of the audience and leaked a year later under the highly amusing and ironic title of "Committing Robbery" (Robbery being one of the tracks played at said convention). THIS recording, sadly, had Greg's banter between tracks edited out to make it more listenable as an 'album' as opposed to a historical record of an event, so I have only my faded/jaded memory to go by and that of any one else who may have been there at the time. MY memory tells me that Greg said it stemmed from the early 1970's. However, the BIG question is this: is the nice clean "studio quality" version we've all heard the exact same recording as the one played at Convention? (I can't check as I don't have the convention recording to hand). BUT, as GWAS has just stated, it was apparantly on the same reel as Polar Bear. The other interesting thing is that it was played virtually back to back with another track called "Feelings" (NOT to be confused with Feelings, Feelings from the NOTW sessions) which was recorded during the exact same session almost straight after SS. Sadly, "Feelings" has never surfaced in decent quality.I've heard the GB commentary from that session, and he doesn't make any reference to when the track is from. 'Feelings' is also a made up name. GB simply refers to it as 'a minute of ad-libbing'. |
| brians wig 15.01.2014 11:52 |
Ok. So Bob has clarified that the convention recording IS the same version we all have in nice quality. That's good to know. If the musicians here are also certain that the drums etc are from the 1977 period, then I'm okay with that. Question then is this: Who is Freddie referring to when he says "He doesn't know it"? Can the musicians here confirm that Silver Salmon is played by just Brian, Roger and Freddie - ie, no bass. If so, then perhaps it maybe IS John to whom Fred refers. Jam Monkey: Have you got the GB commentary from that archive session? I was sure Greg had said it was from the early 70's. Of course, the positive about Convention is the opportunity to speak to Greg afterwards. He's got worse as the years have gone by, but he was reasonably open back at the start depending on what he was asked and I do recall grabbing him after a number of sessions. Like I said, we need Greg to come here and confirm... |
| mooghead 15.01.2014 12:07 |
Why can't people just admit they don't have a clue? |
| Thistle 15.01.2014 12:25 |
brians wig wrote: BUT, as GWAS has just stated, it was apparantly on the same reel as Polar Bear.Yeah, but that's an edit of his original statement, which claimed 1974 to be the year. He didn't mention at this point that it was on the same reel as Polar Bear. Not saying he's covering his arse, btw (anyone can make a mistake and correct it). Just pointing out that that 1974 was actually his original statement on the matter. |
| Thistle 15.01.2014 12:38 |
brians wig wrote: I first heard this track back in 2001 (?) at Greg's very first archive session - a session which, as you all should know by now, was recorded by a member of the audience and leaked a year later under the highly amusing and ironic title of "Committing Robbery" (Robbery being one of the tracks played at said convention).I remember having that recording, but it was just a CDR so don't know what it came from. I think there was a bootleg called "Gone Fishing" which featured some (if not all) of the same recording, and then later "My Secret Fantasy", which again featured some of that convention. |
| Lord Gaga 15.01.2014 12:48 |
mooghead wrote: Why can't people just admit they don't have a clue?Shush, dear, the adults are talking. |
| Gregsynth 15.01.2014 12:58 |
That Silver Salmon recording is from 1977. The drums were mentioned but another clue is Freddie's voice (which was also touched upon). He doesn't have the bright, feminine, and "youthful" tone to his voice that's prominent from the early 70s. He's got the slightly deeper tone with a slight growled edge to it. Also, listen to his top end notes--sounds absolutely nothing like early Freddie. If you listen to NOTW tracks such as "It's Late," the timbre of Freddie's voice is a perfect match to that NOTW track. |
| Gregsynth 15.01.2014 13:06 |
Another piece of evidence proving it's from 1977 is at 16 seconds. Listen to where Freddie attempts to sing an E5 and his voice breaks/cracks up to around a G5. The only thing that would cause a sound like that (the break with overtones) is something impairing the vocal cords (nodules, polyps, etc). As everybody knows, Freddie first got these touring Sheer Heart Attack in early 1975. |
| Rubbersuit 15.01.2014 13:22 |
This was a hot topic a while ago. In the end, it was the lack of pitch correction that was throwing people off + the drum kit pretty much IDed it as a 1977 recording. |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2014 13:36 |
ghostwithasmile wrote:a) did you see the reel and attest to that yourself?The Real Wizard wrote: So what's your counter-evidence then?it is on the same reel.... b) is it not possible to pick up an old reel with blank tape and record something else onto it? |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2014 13:40 |
Gregsynth wrote: That Silver Salmon recording is from 1977. The drums were mentioned but another clue is Freddie's voice (which was also touched upon). He doesn't have the bright, feminine, and "youthful" tone to his voice that's prominent from the early 70s. He's got the slightly deeper tone with a slight growled edge to it. Also, listen to his top end notes--sounds absolutely nothing like early Freddie. If you listen to NOTW tracks such as "It's Late," the timbre of Freddie's voice is a perfect match to that NOTW track.Absolutely fucking 100% bang on. |
| scollins 15.01.2014 13:40 |
late 71 early 72 |
| Thistle 15.01.2014 13:55 |
I'm even more confused. I think those who say '77 have a good argument (especially when you hear the speed corrected version) but I'd also like to say that Freddie did not always produce top-notch performances in the early days. He sounds woeful in the wreckage recording (IMO) and I recall a few dodgy moments from some of the early 70s shows (don't ask me specific dates as I got rid of a lot of my recordings a couple of years ago). The argument from those who say late 70s carries a lot of weight and makes a lot of sense....but there's still no ACTUAL source of information, other than detective work. Would be good to hear from fanthology on why they've listed it as early 70s!! |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2014 13:56 |
It's just an old tale told even before we had the pleasure of actually hearing the song. Tim Staffell wrote the song, so therefore they only worked on it in the early days. All other detective work be damned. There should be nothing confusing about this. They tried out an old song, and Deacon didn't play on it because the song predates his involvement in the band. All aural evidence points to 1977. If we don't listen to people with a keen ear for detail, then we might as well throw out all archaeological and written evidence for anything that happened more than 150 years ago since everyone who was around back then is dead now. That seriously is the road we're going down now if we're just going to ignore evidence in favour of fables. |
| Ozz 15.01.2014 14:06 |
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 15.01.2014 14:20 |
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 15.01.2014 14:33 |
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 15.01.2014 14:42 |
Ozz wrote: 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.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 15.01.2014 15:12 |
Not related to Silver Salmon, but has anyone seen this? link An acetate for an apparently planned (?) EP containing four songs from Queen II. Real or fake? |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2014 15:16 |
Walter White wrote: 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.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 15.01.2014 15:29 |
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 15.01.2014 15:35 |
Gregsynth wrote: The only thing that would cause a sound like that (the break with overtones) is something impairing the vocal cords (nodules, polyps, etc).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 15.01.2014 16:31 |
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 15.01.2014 16:51 |
The Real Wizard wrote:I know Bob. Would never have taken it that way :)Walter White wrote: 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.It's all good. Sorry if I came across heavy handed toward you - absolutely not my intent. |
| GT 16.01.2014 00:35 |
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 16.01.2014 04:33 |
GT wrote: 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.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 16.01.2014 04:50 |
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 16.01.2014 05:46 |
Pim Derks wrote: Not related to Silver Salmon, but has anyone seen this? link An acetate for an apparently planned (?) EP containing four songs from Queen II. Real or fake?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 16.01.2014 07:59 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:I'm not sure, but a few things of concern:Pim Derks wrote: Not related to Silver Salmon, but has anyone seen this? link An acetate for an apparently planned (?) EP containing four songs from Queen II. Real or fake?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. 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?? |
| Mr.QueenFan 16.01.2014 10:34 |
edit. double post |
| Mr.QueenFan 16.01.2014 10:34 |
GT wrote: 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.This is a very good point, and true. Bands do play old songs and covers to warm up. I've always had this question in my mind about Queen after 1986 in the studio. If the tapes were running, is there any live concerts in the studio in the years 88-91? By this is mean, warming up to "Tie your mother down" and other stuff. I've always fantasized about hearing Freddie singing "BohRap" and "We are the champions" with his 1990 voice. It's wishful thinking but i always thought about this possibility. |
| The Real Wizard 16.01.2014 10:59 |
GT wrote: 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.In the 70s I bet this happened a lot, but by the early 80s? Their tastes were in so many directions at that point, and I get the impression that things weren't even amicable enough by Hot Space and The Works to even want to jam. But ... of course I wasn't there. It sure is fun to speculate. |
| John S Stuart 16.01.2014 11:31 |
If this song has been tucked away all this time in the vaults of the Bank of England (adjusting for inflation); we will be lucky if it is released as "Silver Sardine"! |
| Thistle 16.01.2014 12:01 |
^ PMSL |
| The Real Wizard 07.03.2014 15:44 |
Gotta open this can of worms one more time... link At 3:12, Brian has bent a note (tenth fret on the B string) and taps the 18th fret with his right hand. He first began exploring the two fingered tapping technique during... ... the recording of NEWS OF THE WORLD. Every piece of aural evidence points this track to the summer of 1977, and this bit should cement it. |
| Sebastian 07.03.2014 17:03 |
The Real Wizard wrote: He first began exploring the two fingered tapping techniqueThat we know of ... I agree with SS being from NotW, but I disagree with the wording of your statement. |
| The Real Wizard 07.03.2014 17:27 |
Well, until other evidence suggests he explored the technique prior to 77, it stands as one further piece of the puzzle. Current science sees the age of our planet as about 4.5 billion years old. Until further evidence suggests otherwise, we accept the hypothesis. We don't reject it because other evidence might come along some day. If that was the case, then we wouldn't accept anything about the world that's beyond anyone's ability to be an eyewitness. We just have to hit a point where we reach reasonable middle ground and accept something because the evidence is balanced, convincing and rational enough that we can rule out the extremely minute chance that it may be built upon some day. This is the basis of all study of history, archaeology and geology ... so it might as well apply here too. |
| The Real Wizard 07.03.2014 18:11 |
link This interview implies that Brian learned of the technique not long before he laid the It's Late solo down to tape, a brief phase he went through. His first exposure to tapping was when he saw a guitar player in a bar band in Texas, and Queen's first visit there was 1975. So that immediately disqualifies this Silver Salmon recording as being earlier than that. But it seems pretty clear it was all in 1977. |
| dysan 08.03.2014 00:39 |
Great thread. Well done everyone. |
| Sebastian 08.03.2014 10:18 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Current science sees the age of our planet as about 4.5 billion years old.It's not the same case, as the research methods differ. This is more like: currently, no dinosaur larger than Argentinosaurus has been discovered. Sensible palaeontologists describe it, then, as 'the largest sauropod known (so far)', which is NOT the same as 'the largest sauropod ever to have existed,' as they're fully aware that we haven't, and most likely won't ever have, discovered even half of the species that existed in those days. Same case here: it can be said, and it's absolutely valid, that the first documented instance of Brian publicly using tapping on a released studio recording was in 1977. What is NOT, is saying that Brian never tapped before that, as that can't be known. The Real Wizard wrote: We just have to hit a point where we reach reasonable middle ground and accept something because the evidence is balanced, convincing and rational enough that we can rule out the extremely minute chance that it may be built upon some day. This is the basis of all study of history, archaeology and geology ... so it might as well apply here too.Exactly, so it can be said, and it's absolutely valid, that the first documented instance of Brian publicly using tapping on a released studio recording was in 1977. What is NOT, is saying that Brian never tapped before that, as that can't be known. |
| Sebastian 08.03.2014 10:26 |
That's precisely 'middle ground': admitting that there's not enough evidence to assume he never tapped before that (or that Roger never had timbales before that). It wouldn't make sense to completely dismiss the theory just because we don't know, but it doesn't make sense, either, to completely accept the theory as, again, we don't know. Roger using timbales and Brian using tapping both contribute to the sound hypothesis that SS comes from 1977. Roger using timbales and Brian using tapping both strongly connect that record to the same era as the NOTW album. It's a fact that the first incorporation of timbales and tapping to the band's sound was NOT after 1977; it's a theory (nothing more, nothing less) that it was IN 1977. |
| The Real Wizard 08.03.2014 11:20 |
Fair play. But it's not like it's 50/50. It's a wider margin than that. Otherwise, creationism is worthy of 50% of the discussion vs modern science. Not every point of view is equal. Bottom line in this particular instance is that we both see the many things clearly pointing this track to 1977, so hopefully it can now be put to rest. |
| Sebastian 08.03.2014 18:25 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Not every point of view is equal.Neither is every wording. Sometimes terms can be interchangeable depending on the context (e.g., referring to a band's 'guitarist' as 'the guitar player'), sometimes they're simply not (e.g., referring to a 'guitar' as a 'ping-pong table'). It's a fact that John wrote YMBF at some point between his birth (or the beginnings of his literacy) and September 1975 (in an interview published on the 27th that month Freddie mentions the song). It can be safely assumed, based on interviews and quotes, that he wrote the song about Veronica, so the time frame can be narrowed down to after he met her (early 1970's, I suppose) and September 1975. It can be less safely (but still relatively soundly) assumed, also based on interviews and stuff, that he wrote the song after they'd finished the SHA album (which would explain why it's not there or in any of its predecessors), which would narrow the time frame even more (October 1974 to September 1975). From then on, theories would have a much stronger margin of error: for instance, it could be assumed that the song had to be written by the time they rehearsed at the Ridge Farm (July and/or August 1975), as they used to get together for pre-production and show each other the new songs then. It doesn't rule out, however, the possibility that YMBF (or any other) was an exception, just like NIH was in 1974, etc. To simply say that, for instance, John wrote YMBF on the 25th of May 1975, is a massive shot in the dark, because yeah, who knows? Maybe he did, but maybe he didn't. It can be safely established that Brian's first experimentation with tapping took place after his first visit to Texas and before the release of NOTW (i.e., between early 1975 and late 1977). Anything more specific can't be solidly supported with the evidence we have so far. |
| Sebastian 08.03.2014 18:30 |
That's where academic approach dictates the difference between saying, for instance, that the estimated age of the earth is about 4.5 * 10^9 years (keywords: estimated, about), and claiming, for instance, that we know for a fact that the exact age of the earth is 4,498,572,345 years, 4 months, 3 days and 2 and a half hours. |
| scallyuk 08.03.2014 23:19 |
GT says "Tracks like Feelings and Silver Salmon were often played in a band jam " so does that mean there are MORE takes than we are aware of? seeing as you used the word OFTEN. |