| RadekQ 04.02.2017 13:17 |
Hi, it has been bothering me for a while now... Few weeks ago, I have been listening to unreleased Queen demos and suddenly I realised that 3 notes with guitars: Brian's and (probably) John's sound same (to me) on boths "tracks" (it is same part, but 2 different qualities). Just listen to those parts: 1) Feelings: 2:07-2:08 2) Silver Salmon: 0:00-0:01 (you can download those file here: link Now, info taken from link about "Feelings": "This track was written by Brian, and is believed to have originated in 1971, before John joined the band..." and about Silver Salmon: "This track is believed to have been written by Tim Staffell. [...] There is debate about when the track originates from, as some people believe it was recorded for the 'Queen' or 'Queen II' albums between 1972 and 1974, and some people believe it was recorded for the 'News Of The World' album in 1977, due to Freddie's vocal performance and the use of rototoms on the track. Some sources also suggest that the track features Barry Mitchell on bass, instead of John, but apparently this rumour was started by somebody trying to sell an acetate CD of the track. OK, so what's the deal? First of all, I have to underline, that I'm not an expert or anything - these are just my assumptions: - If those songs are played one by one (editing is also possible), it means that these come from the same session/year (obviously); - the quality is different, but on the beginning of Silver Salmon we can cear fluent transition between Feelings and Silver Salmon. - Freddie says: Try and put a bit of Silver Salmon, I know he doesn't know it but he might just play on, just put, just the rhythm, see if. Who is HE? Could it be John? Join has joined Queen in 1971 - and both tracks MAY ORIGINATE in 1971. - The quality is just great: do you think, they may be using De Lane Lea Studio in 1971? It doesn't sound like "a garage sound"..? We all know, that Queen was allowed to use De Lane Lea studio for "sound insulation" (don't know proper English word) and they played "heavy" songs. Both songs above are "heavy" and they perfectly fit :) OK, maybe I mixed too many theories and ideas... Feel free to comment and debate. Sorry for my English - it is not my mother tongue. |
| Pokemaniacjunk 04.02.2017 15:14 |
i would say the song is from 1977 since this speed corrected version sounds more natural link |
| Oscar J 04.02.2017 16:36 |
It's most definitely from the News Of The World era, and I think that's a widely accepted consensus these days. There is nothing indicating otherwise, especially if you're familiar with Rogers drumming. Not only his kit (already pointed out - they were scrapped back in the early days), but the syncopated fills, how he uses his hi-hat, and his well practiced bass drum triplets at the end - very similar to those on the ending of It's Late. Freddie's straining on the high notes in a way he had only started doing around 1977. His early 70's high notes were much lighter. It's clear as a day to me. :) |
| The Real Wizard 04.02.2017 17:34 |
Yes - all three recordings (Feelings Feelings, Feelings jam, Silver Salmon) are from the News Of The World sessions in 1977. We've only heard the Feelings jam from a convention recording, but the other two have identical mixes. They are very likely from the same session in 77. Roger's drum kit is the obvious indicator, but the last notes of Silver Salmon are Brian doing a bend and a right hand tap - something he began exploring in the studio in 77 after seeing a cover band while on tour in Texas doing Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers by ZZ Top. |
| Sebastian 04.02.2017 18:54 |
The Real Wizard wrote: after seeing a cover band while on tour in Texas doing Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers by ZZ Top.Not quite. He saw someone doing it, and they told him they'd learnt it from that song... not the same as having seen someone covering it. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 04.02.2017 20:48 |
My recollection is Brian said he "stole" it from Billy Gibbons, who said he "stole" it from the bar band guy in Texas. |
| Sebastian 04.02.2017 22:45 |
'I remember the first time I tried tapping, I actually got the idea from someone else in the early '70s. We were on tour in Texas, and a few beverages had been consumed while we were watching a bar band. The guitarist kept adding this high note as a single tap to his blues licks, and it sounded like a flute or clarinet or something. I told him I was going to nick it and he said, 'fine'! He'd nicked it off someone else anyway. He said he'd heard Billy Gibbons do it on a ZZ Top album, but I've listened to all their stuff since and I still don't know which track he means.' - Brian May, Total Guitar, Xmas 1998 Source |
| The Real Wizard 05.02.2017 00:39 |
Sebastian wrote: 'I remember the first time I tried tapping, I actually got the idea from someone else in the early '70s. We were on tour in Texas, and a few beverages had been consumed while we were watching a bar band. The guitarist kept adding this high note as a single tap to his blues licks, and it sounded like a flute or clarinet or something. I told him I was going to nick it and he said, 'fine'! He'd nicked it off someone else anyway. He said he'd heard Billy Gibbons do it on a ZZ Top album, but I've listened to all their stuff since and I still don't know which track he means.' - Brian May, Total Guitar, Xmas 1998 SourceAhh !! Cool, thanks for clarifying. But my overall point remains the same ;) |
| dave76 05.02.2017 04:44 |
It's 1977, without a doubt. Roger's drumkit and Freddie's vocal range sounds exactly the same as all the other tracks that ended up on that album. Another good example to check, listen to Silver Salmon and Feelings. Then listen to the fast WWRY version from the BBC session in october that year. |
| RadekQ 05.02.2017 07:01 |
Thank you all for nice discussion and comments! |
| Sheer Brass Neck 05.02.2017 13:25 |
^^^ my recollection is no match for your sourcing, thanks Seb :) |
| GT 06.02.2017 05:12 |
If you want clarification, read the sleeve notes on the 2011Deluxe Edition CD of the 'News Of The World' album. |
| rocknrolllover 06.02.2017 05:44 |
GT wrote: If you want clarification, read the sleeve notes on the 2011Deluxe Edition CD of the 'News Of The World' album.If silver salmon from those era why this song wasn't as bonus? Thank you |
| dysan 06.02.2017 09:24 |
Uh oh |
| Negative Creep 06.02.2017 09:29 |
rocknrolllover wrote:That's like asking why they don't want to release rarities - it's coz they don't wanna! They want to keep 99.9% of the archives back to use in future label negotiations. It's just used as carrot dangling to get more money out of labels. Given the material (hundreds of hours of unheard studio work - nevermind live - to mine) Universal 100% want to release either massively expanded album re-issues or archive box sets. Universal will not have been happy with the "compromise" of 5 track bonus CDs of largely uninteresting material. Universal wanted to continue the series of concert releases via Eagle Rock, but QPL backed off/pulled the plug. Universal aren't a label who are going to turn unreleased Queen material down - in fact, they were begging for it and coming up against the wall than EMI did. It's their material, but I think it's very sad that they're not willing to delve in and release the great things in the archive. It isn't that they see no worth in it - perversely, it's the very opposite of that and that they use it to extract more money out of labels who bid for the rights to release their material.GT wrote: If you want clarification, read the sleeve notes on the 2011Deluxe Edition CD of the 'News Of The World' album.If silver salmon from those era why this song wasn't as bonus? Thank you |
| RS_Protos 06.02.2017 12:42 |
Some very good points, totally agree |
| rocknrolllover 07.02.2017 05:50 |
Negative Creep wrote:The question was not addressed to you, but thank you for the negative response.rocknrolllover wrote:That's like asking why they don't want to release rarities - it's coz they don't wanna! They want to keep 99.9% of the archives back to use in future label negotiations. It's just used as carrot dangling to get more money out of labels. Given the material (hundreds of hours of unheard studio work - nevermind live - to mine) Universal 100% want to release either massively expanded album re-issues or archive box sets. Universal will not have been happy with the "compromise" of 5 track bonus CDs of largely uninteresting material. Universal wanted to continue the series of concert releases via Eagle Rock, but QPL backed off/pulled the plug. Universal aren't a label who are going to turn unreleased Queen material down - in fact, they were begging for it and coming up against the wall than EMI did. It's their material, but I think it's very sad that they're not willing to delve in and release the great things in the archive. It isn't that they see no worth in it - perversely, it's the very opposite of that and that they use it to extract more money out of labels who bid for the rights to release their material.GT wrote: If you want clarification, read the sleeve notes on the 2011Deluxe Edition CD of the 'News Of The World' album.If silver salmon from those era why this song wasn't as bonus? Thank you Shame on Roger and Brian and I like to think that I can blame them in it |
| Barry Durex 07.02.2017 06:11 |
Not being funny, but relying on Q.P. sleeve notes being accurate is a bit of a gamble. |
| Sebastian 07.02.2017 10:31 |
Barry Durex wrote: Not being funny, but relying on Q.P. sleeve notes being accurate is a bit of a gamble.Exactly! |
| Vocal harmony 08.02.2017 09:33 |
Negative Creep wrote:[/b That's like asking why they don't want to release rarities - it's coz they don't wanna! They want to keep 99.9% of the archives back to use in future label negotiations. It's just used as carrot dangling to get more money out of labels. Given the material (hundreds of hours of unheard studio work - nevermind live - to mine) Universal 100% want to release either massively expanded album re-issues or archive box sets. Universal will not have been happy with the "compromise" of 5 track bonus CDs of largely uninteresting material. Universal wanted to continue the series of concert releases via Eagle Rock, but QPL backed off/pulled the plug. Universal aren't a label who are going to turn unreleased Queen material down - in fact, they were begging for it and coming up against the wall than EMI did. It's their material, but I think it's very sad that they're not willing to delve in and release the great things in the archive. It isn't that they see no worth in it - perversely, it's the very opposite of that and that they use it to extract more money out of labels who bid for the rights to release their material.You seem to know a lot about the workings of both Queen Productions and Universal, including what Universal signed Queen for. I guess a fare question would be which do you work for? The most complete (as far as I can tell) release of rare material is the current on going Pink Floyd project through EMI. Floyd go further back than Queen as a recording band and it's only last year that they have gone this deep into the archive. Previously releasing double sets of their albums/CD's with rare or live recordings. With the Floyd project in mind there is still hope that Queen will do something similar. The idea the Universal signed Queen for their un released archive or that Queen Production are hanging on to it for some huge payout is almost laughable. The cost of such releases is huge if done like Floyd have and will only be of interest it real hardcore fans and then only the ones with deep pockets. The real money for a record company ( quick income if you like) selling a band like Queen is in selling to the masses and that means songs that are already known. Or selling new product to ( if any) to new fans Yes there is mileage in things like The Rainbow but those sales are no match world wide for a New U2 or Stones album or any number of more cut tent artists. |
| dysan 09.02.2017 02:37 |
Maybe a good comparison is Abba. Best known for hit singles, the only unreleased studio material they ever released was a butchered 20 minute medley of studio out takes cobbled together for a 4 disc boxset (that included the usual suspects). We should count ourselves lucky that the percentage of 'Hit Singles band' Queen that is considered a rock albums act HAS BEEN treated to archival stuff. |
| Sebastian 09.02.2017 07:15 |
It's a bit ironic, though, that they - Brian in particular - won't stop saying Queen were an albums band rather than a singles one ... yet their output says otherwise. That means that either the record label has far more of a say than we think, or that they don't buy their own story, or that they simply don't care... or a combination of those. |
| Dim 09.02.2017 12:20 |
Even The Game, Flash Gordon and Hot Space have solid sound and music. Whether it is Rock pop album or Funk. In my opinion only The Works, AKOM and the Miracle presents a singles band. If the Works had more songs like Love kills, I Go Crazy, TMBMTL and Man on Fire it could have been a classic album from the 80s. Having successful singles in a album it does not mean that the band is not album artists. The Flow of the music in the album makes this. In my opinion, the majority of their discography makes the album artists. 12 out of 15 studio albums |
| Sebastian 09.02.2017 14:04 |
The difference is that Queen's Greatest Hits largely outsells their bona fide albums. Other artists do not have that problem: Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, Guns 'n' Roses, etc., have all released 'greatest hits' or 'best of ...' or whatever, but they've all got at least one album which was more commercially successful than any of their compilations. Even The Beatles '1' is, at least at the moment, beaten by 'Sgt Pepper's.' Queen's best-selling albums were News of the World and The Game (four million copies each in America alone), followed by A Night at the Opera (three million copies in America, half a million in Germany). 'Made in Heaven' (which is partly a compilation) outsold Opera four-to-one in Britain and three-to-one in Germany (their main European targets ... though I'm not sure if the UK counts as Europe :p ). 'Greatest Hits' sold twice as much as 'News' and 'Game' in the States, twenty times as much as 'Opera' in Britain, a bit over three times as much as 'Opera' in Germany. For every person who, somewhere in the world, has bought 'Queen II', there are probably twenty-five to thirty people who have bought 'Greatest Hits.' Compare with Pink Floyd, whose 'Echoes', whilst still a big success, was largely outsold in their main target markets by seven bona fide albums, including the hated 'Division Bell'. In fact, for every copy of 'Echoes' sold in the States, there were roughly two copies of 'Animals', three of 'Wish You Were Here', six of 'The Wall' and seven of 'Dark Side.' |
| Dim 09.02.2017 15:14 |
Queen'Greatest hits is from 1981, while or the othe compilations are from 2000's. Having mentioned ANATO thanks to digital, re-re-releases, Streaming is Now the best selling album from 1975, with bigger sales than Physical Graphity and Wish you Were here. Also if you check Queen back catalogue sales, you will see that until GH was releases, all Queen albums were selling great. Sheer Heart Attack turned Platinum award in early 80s. The Works was selling great until 1991. The same happened for all Queen albums when Hollywood records re-released them, the sales droped when Classic Queen and GH were released. Also record companies like Emi and now universal virgin emi, did and Still do to promote compilations. |
| Sebastian 09.02.2017 16:10 |
A Collection of Great Dance Songs is from 1981 (same year as Queen's Greatest Hits) and it sold really well, but not by any means nearly as well as Floyd's albums until then (especially The Wall and Dark Side, of course). The Beatles' Red and Blue compilations are from 1973, and they sold really well, but not as well as 'Sgt Pepper's', 'Abbey Road' and perhaps a few others. MJ had about eight compilations released in the 80's, 'Thriller' still outsold them all, by far. |
| Dim 10.02.2017 08:41 |
The success of their compilations does not make them singles band. Their studio albums in Europe, Japan and some othe countries like Brazil and Angertina have very impressive results better than Deep purpule, led Zeppelin, the Who and others. While bigger results with compilations. Queen since soundscan era are doing great in US. |
| Sebastian 10.02.2017 09:02 |
From a realistic standpoint, yes, it does make a difference. QPL don't care much about an album going platinum in Argentina (that equals sixty thousand shipments), gold in Austria (25 thousand) or double platinum in Poland (forty thousand), they focus instead on trying to make it platinum in America (a million shipments). Mathematically speaking, being certified gold in America earns them more money than being eight times platinum in Argentina, or twenty-five times platinum in Poland. In fact, the best selling anglophone record ever in Argentina, 'Use Your Illusion II', barely made it to the million mark - whereas plenty of albums by plenty of artists have sold more than that in the States alone. The average Pink Floyd cares as much about 'Great Gig in the Sky' as 'Another Brick in the Wall' or 'Have a Cigar.' In fact, a Dark Side boxset will be far more effective than a compilation of singles. For Queen it's not like that: those who care about 'Prophet's Song' or 'March of the Black Queen' are far, far, far outnumbered by those who only know 'Ga Ga', 'Magic' and the like. |
| MackMantilla 10.02.2017 09:15 |
Sebastian wrote: From a realistic standpoint, yes, it does make a difference. QPL don't care much about an album going platinum in Argentina (that equals sixty thousand shipments), gold in than being eight times platinum in Argentina, or twenty-five times platinum in Poland. In fact, the best selling anglophone record ever in Argentina, 'Use Your Illusion II', barely made it to the Austria (25 thousand) or double platinum in Poland (forty thousand), they focus instead on trying to make it platinum in America (a million shipments). Mathematically speaking, being certified gold in America earns them more money million mark - whereas plenty of albums by plenty of artists have sold more than that in the States alone. The average Pink Floyd cares as much about 'Great Gig in the Sky' as 'Another Brick in the Wall' or 'Have a Cigar.' In fact, a Dark Side boxset will be far more effective than a compilation of singles. For Queen it's not like that: those who care about 'Prophet's Song' or 'March of the Black Queen' are far, far, far outnumbered by those who only know 'Ga Ga', 'Magic' and the like.That's right |
| Dim 10.02.2017 12:19 |
The number of their sales in Europe is about 100 milion sales. Not counting dvd, video and singles. While Usa sales are about 45milions albums. The same number of sales is for Led Zeppelin in Usa Maybe bigger and 30milions in Europe. Don't underestimate different Markets, and see Europe sales as big as usa in overall. See them as union than idividual countries. Check their World wide success in many countries than USA. That means alot about how great and OpenOffice is Queen music, it reaches many different cultures |
| Sebastian 10.02.2017 13:35 |
Dim wrote: The number of their sales in Europe is about 100 milion sales. Not counting dvd, video and singles. While Usa sales are about 45milions albums. The same number of sales is for Led Zeppelin in Usa Maybe bigger and 30milions in Europe. Don't underestimate different Markets, and see Europe sales as big as usa in overall. See them as union than idividual countries. Check their World wide success in many countries than USA. That means alot about how great and OpenOffice is Queen music, it reaches many different culturesIt's not me you need to convince, but them. Then again, in a territory such as Liechtenstein, Nicaragua or Papua New Guinea, it's still utopian to think people will care more about 'Drowse' or 'The Kiss' than they will about 'Dust' or 'Rock You.' I do, and perhaps you do and/or a few others in here, but not even close to what they want for a sizeable market, especially compared to what they can earn by still exploiting the same stuff as always. |
| Dim 10.02.2017 16:38 |
I agree with you about general public only know ANATO, but more the GH. But this was a record company choice. Queen adopted and still adopt this choice. Because is easier,faster and with better money results. The last four Queen and Adam Tours were based in this practice. Also Queen members only accationly speak about their back catalogue studio albums |
| The Real Wizard 10.02.2017 22:10 |
Dim wrote: I agree with you about general public only know ANATO, but more the GH. But this was a record company choice. Queen adopted and still adopt this choice.It's a combination of factors, but certainly not solely based on their record company's business practices. Queen stopped being an album band by Jazz. It happened to a lot of acts around 1978, largely because FM radio morphed from album tracks to playlists. Advertising revenue became more important than recognizing artistry. In Queen's case, being exiled and Mercury's gradual alienation from the band certainly didn't help. |
| Dim 11.02.2017 05:57 |
I think that the Game, Flash Gordon, Hot Space have solid music and their listening has a good flow. The music does not match the high artistic standar of their previous albums, but none of the above Lps can characterize the Band as singles artists. Queen albums since SHA have one or two big hits. Also Innendo was back to a more artistic side, while MIH is a very solid try. So most of their output is albums with 1-2 big hits. |