| John S Stuart 24.11.2004 12:24 |
Stealing from another thread... "Are there any bootleg copies (audio or video) of Queen performing with a pre-John bassist?" The simple answer is NO - as there are NO Queen studio or session recordings dating the pre-De Lane Lane "Keep Yourself Alive" acetate. But, there have always been some "arguments" about the exact recording dates of this De Lane Lea session. It has always been rumoured as being recorded sometime between 1970 - 1973. (Even "As It Began" only listed four - rather than five tracks). I too accepted the "As It Began"/QP version as correct, (ie: Oct - Dec 1970ish). However, more recent academic research seems to suggest it was recorded more to the centre/end of this period, than the start of this period, but I am still open to suggestion. Regardless of the exact dates, we do know however that John Deacon DOES appear on the very FIRST Queen De Lane Lea recording session. Therefore, the recorded version of Silver Salmon must be POST De Lane Lea demos, and so by default - NO Barry Mitchell - as John was already in place. (This also places the De Lane Lea recording as later '71 - early '72). The Mitchell rumour was deliberately started when a unscrupulous e-bay seller claimed to be selling "Silver Salmon" CD-R acetates (I know how silly this sounds) - but to bolster his sales, he falsely advertised the disc as a pre-Deacon, Barry Mitchell track. This ofcourse was nonesense. Since then mislabelled MP3 downloads have continued the myth. Here I list "Queen"/John's 1970's activities - 1970 Sour Milk Sea: Live Various Gigs, Spring 1970 For Information only - does not exist Line-up: Farrokh Bulsara, Chris Chesney (guitar), Paul Milne (bass), Jeremy Gallop (rhythm guitar), Rob Tyrell (drums). Randolph Hotel, Oxford Spring 1970 Highfield Parish Hall, Headington 20th March 1970 Temple, Lower Wardour Street, London 28th March 1970 Opposition: Unreleased Beck Studios Acetate Recorded 1970, Beck Studios, Wellingborough Vehicle Ides Of March No: 31 June 1970 Transit 3 Sunny Bobby Hebb 1966 Opposition: Live 1970 Line-up: Nigel Bullen, Clive Castledine, Richard Young, John Deacon You Don't Know Going To A Go Go Meeting Over Yonder Midnight Hour Wilson Pickett No: 12 September 1965 Heatwave Knock On Wood Eddie Floyd No: 50 February 1967 Hold On I'm Coming Sam & Dave Something You Got See Saw Something About You I'll Be Doggone Can't Help Myself Dancing In The Street Martha Reeves No: 28 October 1964 Headline News Emergency 999 It's Growing Ride Your Pony Land Of 1,000 Dances Wilson Pickett No: 22 September 1966 Key To Love Opposition: (None John Deacon) Unreleased Acetate Non-John Deacon/ John Savage - One-sided 7” acetate Loosen Up Free Deacon: Live Chelsea College, 21st November 1970 For Information only - does not exist Line-up: John Deacon (bass), Don Carter (drums), Peter Stoddard (guitar) Albert (guitar), 21st November, Chelsea College, London Famous Jug Band: Chameleon UK LP Chameleon (Liberty) Original LP released on EMI/ Liberty label. 1970. Produced/Backing vocals Roger Taylor Sunshine Possibilities CD Extra Tracks: God Knows Chameleon From this we know for definate that John's De Lane Lea activities were post 21st November 1970. Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, October 1971 – February 1972 (Edit: Lester Burnham... five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971 - Good shout Lester - but personally I think this would have taken longer considering that Queen were only allowed to use "downtime" - however the fact that it was recorded ABOUT this time is a great help). In The Beginning Bootleg CD Line-up: Farrokh Bulsara (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Deacon John (bass). Recorded September – October 1971/ January – Februa |
| John S Stuart 24.11.2004 12:25 |
Barry Mitchell 1965 - 1968 Conviction Summer 1965 7” Acetate Rock Me Baby/ Telephone Blues Barry Mitchell first acetate recorded 1965, Barry’s front room (includes Alan Parsons). Usual line up - Vocals: Ian Harris, Guitar/ vocals: Alan Parsons, Guitar: Alan Owen, Bass: Barry Mitchell, Drums: Phil Brockton. Only 5 copies cut. Began life as a soul band around 1965 – 66, as the brainchild of lead vocalist Ian Harris, playing mainly Ottis Reading and Commitment type covers. Converted to Blues circa 1967, when they played such illustrious places as Ronnie Scott’s Blues Club – where they were compared to the likes of Cream and Fleetwood Mac. By 1968 totally psychedelic, converted to hippies, and started writing own material. Spotted by American A&R man Doug Mews of Mercury Records – who was specifically searching for a “London” sound. 1969 Earth January 10 Conviction recorded an album’s worth of material at De Lane Lea Studios for release on the American market. Mercury wanted to change the band’s name to London, the band preferred Earth, and wanted the album to be called Metamorphous or some other psychedelic title. Recorded in the same studio as the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band’s Doughnut in Granny’s Greenhouse album, the eponymous LP Earth, although never issued, was cut as a 12” acetate (of which only a solitary copy seems to exist). This record is not only valuable because it features a very young Alan Parson’s but also highlights future Queen bassist Barry Mitchell. Recorded January 10 1969, Mercury Records, De Lane Lea, London. Produced by Douglas Mews. Blues Tattoo (Mitchell). Don’t See You Much (Mitchell wrote bass). Song To Katherine (Ray Quilly – only drafted in for the day). Vocals: Ian Harris, Alan Parsons: Lead guitar/ acoustic guitar, flute, Organ/ mouth organ: Ray Quilly, Bass guitar: Barry Mitchell, Drums: Phil Brockton. Miseducation, Sea Of Faces, Earthworm, Rain On The Roof, Something Above Us, Blues Tattoo, Don’t See You Much, In The Land Of The Blind, Angel Of Death, Song To Katherine. 1970 After the departure of original Queen bassist Mike Grose, Barry’s friend Roger Crossley, who had met Roger Taylor, set up an audition at Imperial College. After passing the audition, Barry was invited to join, and like Brian and Roger, brought a degree of hardened studio professionalism to the struggling out-fit, and also, coincidently cut unreleased material for Mercury Records, specifically aimed at the US market. This new Queen practiced a variety of material. Covers of Jimmi Hendrix’s Electric Lady and Voodoo Chile proved to be particular favourites, as did, Shirley Bassey’s Big Spender and Cliff Richard’s Bachelor Boy. Live sets included the old Wreckage number Stone Cold Crazy, and the perennial Elvis Presley and Little Richard encores. A particular highlight for the band (and Brian in particular) was the appearance of the Tornados guitarist Heinz (Just Like Eddie), at their first Imperial College gig. Brian May amassed a large private collection of band photographs during this period, but unfortunately none seem to survive. 1971 January 9 Ewell Technical College, Surrey Barry Mitchell's final gig, supporting Kevin Ayres And The Whole World Band and Genesis. The set was recorded by Ken Testi on a Grundig reel to reel - due to technical difficulties (mangled/chewed tape), only the encore remains. Jailhouse rock, Stupid Cupid, Bebopa Lula, Big Spender, Bamalama Lamaloo January 10 Barry Mitchell left the band for personal reasons, the departure was amicable and on good terms. In fact Barry was persuaded by the rest of the band to stay on, but his mind would not be changed. Primarily, he left because he wanted to marry and settle. Also, he could not afford his rock and roll lifestyle. If that sounds a little romantic, he also confesses to being impatient and in his own words; "Queen were an excellent band, but we were going nowhere fast". In essence, he wanted big |
| John S Stuart 24.11.2004 12:40 |
Sorry if this all seems a little too much - but I really hate seeing such rumours unchecked - so I do my best to address them. (Not that it makes much difference as most people believe what they want to anyway!). As for mistakes, I also make them - (far too frequently!) As can be seen, I too once thought that the De Lane Lea sessions began life circa 1970. From the above research, I can now see that it is not so. Hence the change in my own personal position. Just trying to keep it straight! |
| The Real Wizard 24.11.2004 14:01 |
Very interesting stuff here. Too bad most people don't care. |
| deleted user 24.11.2004 14:04 |
|
| Chaka 24.11.2004 14:46 |
excellent information to have yet again. JSS is really a wealth of this stuff that nobody else can seem to get to. |
| deleted user 24.11.2004 14:56 |
Thanks very much! this clears things up for me |
| Saint Jiub 24.11.2004 19:21 |
Thanks again John - Very interesting. |
| Lester Burnham 24.11.2004 20:05 |
What about the Queen version of 'Polar Bear' then? |
| iGSM 24.11.2004 20:08 |
Damn, that's some down to Earth info. Thanks John. |
| q-_-p 24.11.2004 20:51 |
Thanks for putting in the effort, John. Interesting stuff |
| John S Stuart 24.11.2004 22:49 |
What about the Queen version of 'Polar Bear' then? Same category as "Silver Salmon". Post De Lane Lane acetate. |
| deleted user 25.11.2004 00:22 |
That shed some light into that Polar Bear issue. I've been believing that Mitchell played the bass there... What would've happened to Queen if Mr. Mitchell had stayed? |
| Lester Burnham 25.11.2004 00:36 |
He would've written Queen's biggest flop, 'Another One Bites The Crust'. |
| deleted user 25.11.2004 00:58 |
Lester Burnham wrote: He would've written Queen's biggest flop, 'Another One Bites The Crust'.Or 'Spread Your Legs'. |
| CMG 25.11.2004 11:28 |
Silver salmon is always said to be recorded before Queen I was released ok BUT...what about that little recording you can listen right before on the same recording? I think it was called silver salmon too? even though its completely different? My copy of the recording has got that little jam song first and once its finished, you listen to the comments made by Freddie right before the start of the usual silver salmon. |
| John S Stuart 25.11.2004 11:37 |
Sorry Cesar, but I fail to see what your point is. If the De Lane Lea sessions are the first time Queen appeared together in the Studio (and it is pretty much fact that it was), then by definition EVERY other Queen recording post dates this event - and ALL these recordings are Deacon inclusive. It matters not about titles or dates - but simple deduction. Therefore whether it is Silver Salmon, Polar Bear, or another (as yet unreleased) Keep Yourself Alive version - it matters not. The sad truth is NO pre-Deacon studio Queen exists. |
| CMG 25.11.2004 12:10 |
ok, thanks. It's just those silver salmon (different from each other takes) doesnt sound so earlier but well, we all know Deacon is there right? |
| Mercuryworks 26.11.2004 08:48 |
"Are there any bootleg copies (audio or video) of Queen performing with a pre-John bassist?" The simple answer is NO - as there are NO Queen studio or session recordings dating the pre-De Lane Lane "Keep Yourself Alive" acetate. well actually there is an mp3 on the net (mercuryparadise.com) that is barry mitchell playing bass and freddie and the rest (except John of course) doing the smile song polar bear |
| Pim Derks 26.11.2004 10:06 |
"well actually there is an mp3 on the net (mercuryparadise.com)....." If I post somewhere that Freddie is alive that doesn't mean it's true either. |
| John S Stuart 26.11.2004 11:38 |
Mercuryworks: Sometimes, I really do wonder if the effort I take is really worth it! I do not expect to be believed - that is fine, but come on, can't some of you guys do a little personal research? Still, as long as false rumours exist, "Mercuryman" yet again pulls his red cotton underpants over his red lycra tights! (OK I like the uniform...:-) |
| Rich Tea 26.11.2004 16:26 |
JSS - Polar Bear was recorded by Smile, Freddie & Tim were becoming good friends around this time and Fred was hanging out with Smile quite a bit. Therefore is it not feasable that there is no Queen version of Polar bear but a Smile version with Freddie guesting on it? |
| deleted user 26.11.2004 17:25 |
I seriously doubt that. Smile's studio history has been relatively well explored and there is no Freddie-participation. |
| John S Stuart 26.11.2004 18:01 |
Rich Tea: The more I write - the more I despair! NO Smile Freddie. NO Pre De Lane Lea Studio Queen. NO Pre-Deacon Queen. I know this is not what you want to hear - but there you have it! What does strike me as curious is - that if you own Smile, Silver Salmon or Polar Bear - does it really make any difference if the bassist is John or not - what difference does it make to the track? Apart from a romantic belief - what other essential essence would this bring? I just feel that by debunking myths like Santa, the tooth fairy or pre-Deacon Queen brings so many questions - I wonder if it is better to keep people in the dark (but believing in rubbish) or to shed a little light - and destroy the magic? |
| Polar Bear 26.11.2004 18:49 |
Leave me out of this, I had neither Barry nor John in me. |
| Rich Tea 26.11.2004 18:51 |
JSS - I find your reply quite condesending really. I am not an anorak like some I was merely putting forward a theory take it or leave it I have yet to read any evidence to the contary that is conclusive. You also obviously know very little about me and have not read some of my previous posts on this board. Please be careful there may just be people around with more knowledge than yourself, knowledge from personal recollections not from rumour and unreliable cuttings and quotes etc. The only people who can confirm whether you are right or wrong are the ones who were there at the time. You were definatly not! |
| John S Stuart 26.11.2004 19:45 |
"JSS - I find your reply quite condesending really". Sorry - it was meant to be humourous (hence the use of exclamation marks) - but if it hit the wrong chord - I apologise. (Which is more than you ever did when you called me "Just A Hot air Ballon"). link But I do KNOW - 100% FACT. NO Freddie Smile. NO Live Smile. No Smile White Queen NO Pre Queen-Deacon (except one unreleased live tape). Now for my delivery - I am truely sorry. It was meant to be a bit of wry pithy humour, and if you have been offended - once again I apologise. As for my message - I stand firm. Hope this clears the air. |
| Saint Jiub 27.11.2004 00:05 |
Sigh ... All this crap again ... and the jealous naysayers still come keep coming out of the woodwork. Anway, thanks again John. |
| Rich Tea 27.11.2004 15:09 |
OK JSS I also apologise (I can be an arse at times) and accept your apology. My only excuse is that as I have got older I have become quite intolerant when people declare as absolute fact something which I personnally know to be wrong. I really should stay away from this board! And yes your research is excellent but please don't present it as absolute because the actual truth might be stranger than you think! Anyway I think you deserve an explanation on this one so I will explain. I briefly became friends with john Harris in 1973 after working at a venue where Queen were supporting Mott. John told me this story which I believe to be the explanation for the Freddie recording of Polar Bear. Brian & Roger were not convinced that Freddie was the right person to front Smile after Tim left but Tim a good mate of Freddies thought he would be a good vocalist although the band would clearly need a 4th member a bassist. Smile had been working also with a Keyboard player who had left at the same time as Tim. Anyway Tim helped Freddie convince Brian & Roger by helping him record the vocals over a few Smile songs which Tim had masters for. You could almost say that what people hear now is in fact a bootleg of Freddies actual audition to join the band. I believe somewhere probably in Brian or Rogers personnal collection are in fact tapes of Freddie singing other Smile songs. I hope that clears up any confusion. In a way I wish I had kept out because all I'm going to do is cause more confusion and controvosy however my point still remains that Brian & Roger will be the only ones alive who know the exact detail and I guess the rest of us will have to wait for the book! |
| Wilki Amieva 27.11.2004 15:30 |
Hmmm... That is a nice story - it's a pity that it contradicts with the studio chat in the take itself! Anyway, I do not believe that Tim himself would have access to the multitrack masters of SMILE songs. |
| Rich Tea 27.11.2004 15:39 |
You see that proves my point! As I very rarly if ever listen to poor quality bootleg MP3's I have not heard the recording you have clearly heard. If there is studio chat between the members of Queen then they must have also recorded a version of this song. I must admit when I read about the excistence of Polar Bear on bootleg I did find it strange because the only way it would have got out would have been from Brian or Roger themselves I guess? I'm sure Tim still has some Smile master tapes now didn't he publicly state this quite recently? Maybe I should just shut up (waits for the obvious - lol) |
| John S Stuart 27.11.2004 18:16 |
Rich Tea: Some interesting points – but the solitary source for that information is John Harris. About 10 years ago – I made a very meticulous study into this area. I recorded interviews with all the leading protagonists (including Roger and Brian) and most of this research was the basis of my "Record Collector" articles published about that time. (It spanned about five episodes if I recall correctly). I was really annoyed at Andy Davis usurping my name because he doesn’t really like Queen (or indeed know much about them) but as anyone involved in the media will tell you - although Richard and Judy or Parky pick up the awards - it is really their researchers who do all the work. (Besides, I have also written about another half dozen or so features without his name – but he has done nothing queen-wise since). From this material – you will see that my good friend Mark Hodkison used part of this research in his book “Queen Before Queen” and for that you will find my name on the inside cover credits. You will also find my name on the credits of both the “Ghost Of A Smile” and the “Freddie Mercury” box set CD releases also. It was I who unearthed the silent “Smile” film, “The Hectics”, “Ibex”, “Wreckage”, “Reaction”, “1984” and pre-Queen live material, as well as owning copies of the “Reaction”, “1984”, “Opposition” and “De Lane Lea” studio sets. (So if you have any of the “Ibex” stuff – it is really down to me that you own it at all). Now the reason I say this, is not as some sort of ego massage or pissing competition (life is too short) but to show that I AM an anorak – and that I have done my homework here. Also, if I need to, I am still in contact with these guys – so people like Tim Staffell or Barry Mitchell are only a telephone call away. Smile did record live material – but the solitary tape was erased to record a graduation ceremony. Brian did write “White Queen” in 1968 but it was never performed by Smile. Freddie and Smile never performed together – but Queen once performed as Smile. (No visual or audio record exists). Smile did record alternative material with Pye in 1968. Smile: Unreleased Pye 7” Acetate Recorded winter 1968, De Lane Lea Studios, Line-up: Tim Staffel (Vocals/harmonica), Brian May (Guitar/vocals), and Roger Taylor (drums) Produced by Terry Yeadon & Geoff Glover Step On Me Polar Bear but that PRE-dates the Mercury Record recordings –not post-date. Smile: Earth/ Step On Me Recorded June 1969, Trident Studios. Produced by John Anthony (Queen) US 7” Mercury Promo Earth Step On Me The remainder of “Ghost Of A Smile CD/ Getting’ Smile LP” Was Recorded August 1969, De Lane Lea Studios, Wembley, Produced by Fritz Freyer, and the final Smile gigs were performed cEaster 1970. Smile: Ghost Of A Smile CD/ Getting’ Smile LP Recorded August 1969, De Lane Lea Studios, Wembley. Produced by Fritz Freyer Release Earth/ Step On Me 7” promo US only. Mercury 72977 October 1982: Mercury Records officially release Japanese Gettin Smile mini-LP April Lady Polar Bear Blag Doing All Right Earth Step On Me Blag (Unreleased: semi-stereo version) While I accept that your story may ring true – (in that Freddie must have rehearsed with the band before they entered the studio) Freddie was not considered as a replacement singer for Smile – rather Freddie was the front man of a whole new band. The new band “Queen” rehearsed much cover material (you can read about this in my eponymous album thread) and rehashes of old Smile and Wreckage material. However, none of this stuff was ever performed in a studio until after the De Lane Lea session. Queen: Unreleased De Lane Lea Demo Tape, October 1971 – February 1972 (Five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971) In The Beginning Bootleg CD Line-up: Farrokh Bulsara (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Deacon John (bass). Recorded September – October 1971/ |
| Rich Tea 27.11.2004 19:24 |
I don't dispute your research and you are right I am only going from conversations and tales told to me by someone who was close to the people involved. My only suspision is combining what you state and the story I was told is that a studio was not involved. As someone who during the 70's was heavily involved in the creative side of the music industry a lot of artists considered studio work to be the pinnacle of achievment and expence and many many recordings were made of reasonable quality in rehearsal rooms and even bedrooms on an old reel to reel or later cassette tape. This was the most economical method for an up and coming band. I've no doubt many a Smile/Queen rehearsal would have been recorded all be it very primitivly to asses the performance. This was after all common practice and probably still is. Also part of the artistic process of arranging a new song would be to record a performance and then to critique it. We all know what perfectionists Queen were, in the early days especially. There are also examples of these rehearsal recordings being of such high quality (by the standards of the time) that they would end up many, many years later being released in retrospective sets. The latest I can think of is the 25th anniversary London Calling CD set. Anyway I'm going to leave it there because I've said enough already and i'm really not that hung up on it. I must say though your articles on un released stuff have proved very imformative and what really does excite me is the hope that one day we will hear decent representations of all the rare stuff especially the unavailable tracks. thanks |
| deleted user 27.11.2004 20:41 |
I'm a bit confused about Smile's keyboarder. I always thought he was thrown out quite a while before Smile disbanded (I think that's how it appears in the RC-article). This would contradict John Harris' statement of the keyboarder leaving at the same time as Tim. Any opinions ? |
| John S Stuart 27.11.2004 22:15 |
Philip: Smile's keyboard player was a guy called Chris Smith. In his words: “I was not as Tim Staffell suggested sacked from the band; I resigned. If Brian May, Roger Taylor and Tim did all get together one day in 1969 and decide I wasn’t right for the band, then they never told me! It is true I was only in Smile for a very short time, but this means I can remember the sequence of events quite clearly”. "I was already stepped in American Rhythm and Blues and Soul music. I was more interested in Muddy Waters than the Who and Led Zeppelin. My idea of starting a band in London at that point was to try and be the next Rolling Stones, while the rest of Smile, were as Tim said, Britrockers. I had wanted us to be a Blues based band, but I very quickly realised that it wasn’t going in that direction, so I left amicably”. By Smith's own admission this was BEFORE... Smile: Live ...Unmarried Mother & Child, Royal Albert Hall 27th February 1969 Wednesday 26th February 1969, Royal Albert Hall, London Supporting: Free, Joe Cocker, Spooky Tooth, and Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. Transmitted Live BBC Radio One, compered by John Peel, but not recorded. Filmed as 8mm B & W silent film. If I Were A Carpenter Tim Harding Earth Smile Mony Mony Tommy James See What A Fool I've Been (Video extract released Queen: Champions Of The World video) and the later Mercury studio recording sessions. |
| deleted user 28.11.2004 07:03 |
Great, thanks John ! That's what I thought. |
| Wilki Amieva 28.11.2004 14:23 |
Rich Tea: I do not quite understand your point anymore. By the way, I can assure you my copy of the song was never an mp3 nor any other compressed format. |
| YourValentine 28.11.2004 14:37 |
I could read this for hours:) |
| Serry... 28.11.2004 14:41 |
John S Stuart wrote: Rich Tea: The more I write - the more I despair! What does strike me as curious is - that if you own Smile, Silver Salmon or Polar Bear - does it really make any difference if the bassist is John or not - what difference does it make to the track? Apart from a romantic belief - what other essential essence would this bring?Can't agree, John. For most of us Queen are: Fred, Brian, Roger and John, and if there's Barry instead of John and even if it calls Queen - it's not totally Queen in our minds. Right or wrong, but it's true. If someone would ask me 'what would you preffer if Brian and Roger would record 10 new songs together or if Brian, Roger and John would record just one song together?' I'd answer 'the one by Brian, Roger and John'. You may call it as 'romantic'. Does it matter who sings WWRY - Freddie or Britney? Spears didn't change lyrics, music etc. - but anyway I love Fred's version. So if Barry plays on 'SS' - it changes something in our minds, I guess. Though I don't think someone can exactly say 'Oh, Barry's playing style is too different to John's, aren't you hear it???'. IMHO |
| Rich Tea 28.11.2004 15:49 |
Wilki I think my point was lost along the way! I felt a little bit annoyed that JSS was dispelling myths I have held in my mind for over 30 years. I still believe there is a recording of Freddie singing Polar Bear with Smile backing him. However I accept that it probably wasn't recorded in a studio but was more of a home brew. The recording that is in the public domain is probably something completely different to the one I was aware of. However as has been said before does it really matter NO it doesn't being aware is one thing but until any of these recordings get a proper Hi fi release we will all continue to speculate and theorise no matter how many facts the experts tell us. I have listened to very few bootleg recordings of rare stuff purely because the ones I have heard I have been disappointed by the quality. I love Queen's music but prefer to listen to it when it is properly produced like the majority of the FM box set. |
| Wilki Amieva 28.11.2004 17:41 |
Oh I see. :-) I certainly can imagine Freddie singing with SMILE at their rehearsals. And it seems feasible that they recorded some of them at some point. ...But a surviving recording is just wishful thinking, I guess. Not only because of the 35 years that have passed since that time, but also remember that bands tended to record the last rehearsal over the previous one. |
| Benn 29.11.2004 08:44 |
Can you really imagine Tim Staffell letting freddie sing with Smile? The egos in a band would certainly prevent that happening, especially when Smile were still trying to make a breakthrough themselves professionally; Tim would have seen that (if you put yourself in his position) as another vocalist trying to muscle in on his territory. Put it this way, if you were trying to get a record deal, woudl you let another vocalist sing with your band? As for Smile recordings, I'm sure that Brian will have recorded a hell of a lot of their rehearsals / shows, even if it is on primitive reel-reel recorders; all young bands record themselves and use what they have as a way of referencing themselves and cpturing any new sounds / riffs that they create; I guess it all depends on what Brian, Roger and Tim want to do with it all - are they planning on putting out a Smile retrospective set? I hope they do, because it would be THE most exciting release outside fo Queen. And then, a the Cross box - just for good measure! |
| John S Stuart 29.11.2004 16:42 |
Benn: According to Tim Staffell - apart from a Pye acetate - there are no other Smile recordings - we have them all. |
| Benn 01.12.2004 08:06 |
Just seems strange that someone that is asavid a collector as Brian, didn't actually record any of their rehearsals. maybe it's because they were so far removed from an amateur band that they felt they could learn on the hoof and didn't feel the need to record their practices. Unless, of course, Tim isn't aware of what Brian has stashed away...... |
| John S Stuart 01.12.2004 11:24 |
Benn: Smile did record of reel-to-reel - so you are correct. BUT the tapes were very expensive and they were recorded over. The only example I can think of is video tape. My wife records "Eastenders" but after watching it, she records over it with another programme. If she then thinks - oh I wish I could re-watch that episode from three months ago - it is a bit late after the episode has been "erased". Smile recodings were meant to be disposable. They were rehearsals. After they served their purpose they were recorded over. It was the studio stuff that was saved for future generations. Now, you are correct, no one but Brian May, knows what is in BHM's locker - but - it was always common knowledge that they used the same tape over and over because in real terms it was very expensive. This tape was erased for a graduation ceremony. So the chances of surving material - almost 40 years after the event - really are zero. |
| Rich Tea 01.12.2004 12:03 |
Perhaps Benn if you read the posts properly you wouldn't make such ignorant comments! Tim had already left Smile! |
| Benn 01.12.2004 12:10 |
Rich Tea: What are YOU talking about? You stated that you believe there to be a recording of Polar Bear with "Smile" backing him? You didn't (and neither did anyone else) refer to any specific dates regarding the Smile personnel. YOU should be more exact in your postings so that they aren't misunderstood. :-) John: I get yer drift on the value of taping over existing material, but I still like to think that Brian would have taped (and kept) something like the Christmas On Earth show and the show that they supported Hendrix (are they one and the same?) at - even as a personal historical document. But then I guess the cost would have proved to be prohibitive at the time; ie - more blank tape as opposed to buying petrol to get to the next gig or the repair of a blown amp........... Nice to dream though :-) |
| Rich Tea 01.12.2004 14:58 |
Hey Benn Scroll up and you will read my post explaining what I believed to be an explanation for the excistence of a recording of Polar Bear featuring Freddie! In case you have trouble I've copied and pasted below for you! I briefly became friends with john Harris in 1973 after working at a venue where Queen were supporting Mott. John told me this story which I believe to be the explanation for the Freddie recording of Polar Bear. Brian & Roger were not convinced that Freddie was the right person to front Smile after Tim left but Tim a good mate of Freddies thought he would be a good vocalist although the band would clearly need a 4th member a bassist. Smile had been working also with a Keyboard player who had left at the same time as Tim. Anyway Tim helped Freddie convince Brian & Roger by helping him record the vocals over a few Smile songs which Tim had masters for. You could almost say that what people hear now is in fact a bootleg of Freddies actual audition to join the band. I believe somewhere probably in Brian or Rogers personnal collection are in fact tapes of Freddie singing other Smile songs. OK its towards the top of this page so to repeat myself read ALL posts before jumping in! Thanks |
| FriedChicken 06.12.2005 04:07 |
"Regardless of the exact dates, we do know however that John Deacon DOES appear on the very FIRST Queen De Lane Lea recording session. Therefore, the recorded version of Silver Salmon must be POST De Lane Lea demos, and so by default - NO Barry Mitchell - as John was already in place. (This also places the De Lane Lea recording as later '71 - early '72). The Mitchell rumour was deliberately started when a unscrupulous e-bay seller claimed to be selling "Silver Salmon" CD-R acetates (I know how silly this sounds) - but to bolster his sales, he falsely advertised the disc as a pre-Deacon, Barry Mitchell track. This ofcourse was nonesense" I also think Silver Salmon was recorded post De Lane Lea. But I also think it's strange... If it was indeed recorded after De Lane Lea it should've been recorded in the time they were booked at Trident studios. Which was, if I'm not mistaken late 1972 early 1973. And De Lane Lea was in the early 1971 (I believe!) Freddie says in the beginning of the track that "he" doesn't know it, and he might just play in. He, ofcourse is the bassplayer, since there is no bassguitar present in the song. It seems to me a bit strange that John, after playing together with Queen for nearly 2 years still doesn't know the song Silver Salmon. And it also seems strange that all of a sudden they decided to play it after 2 years. |
| Fenderek 06.12.2005 07:21 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I also think Silver Salmon was recorded post De Lane Lea. But I also think it's strange... If it was indeed recorded after De Lane Lea it should've been recorded in the time they were booked at Trident studios. Which was, if I'm not mistaken late 1972 early 1973. And De Lane Lea was in the early 1971 (I believe!) Freddie says in the beginning of the track that "he" doesn't know it, and he might just play in. He, ofcourse is the bassplayer, since there is no bassguitar present in the song. It seems to me a bit strange that John, after playing together with Queen for nearly 2 years still doesn't know the song Silver Salmon. And it also seems strange that all of a sudden they decided to play it after 2 years.It's a very good point! I was also listening to both versions of Silver Salmon and thought about this "he doesn't know it" sentence... Seems very logical that "he" is one of the instrumentalists (bass palyer than) and... there's no way they managed to cut more than 5 songs in De Lane Lea, is it? We all know the outcome from De Lane Lea sessions (the finished products) but... do we know ALL OF IT? I wander- where did the FIRST info about De Lane Lea come from? Which book, which interview? ORIGINALLY! Is it possible that we were led to believe that's all there is and... maybe it isn't and the info was just being repeated over and over again? They didn't have too much time to record god knows how many tracks but what they did were demos so it is possible they managed to make 2-3 more... Isn't it? Where is "Polar Bear" from? If it's not De Lane Le it would be Trident, right? Unless they were in some studio in the meantime... Basically I'm thinking- is it possible they recorded MORE in DeLane Lea, or at least started? MAYBE before they record serious demos and were trying the eqipment- maybe THIS IS where the Silver Salmon comes from? They were hired to test the new equipment. As a reward they were given a chance to record the demos- but that's AFTER. They were testing the equipment simply by... playing music... Is it possible this had been recorded and "Silver Salmon" version 1 is pretty much THAT? It does sound a bit like a live take... |
| Fenderek 06.12.2005 07:29 |
sorry, double post... |
| Sebastian 06.12.2005 08:43 |
John, do you have any concrete proofs about the so-called fact that Queen's first studio session was De Lane Lea's KYA? I mean of course, besides Brian saying it twenty seven years later (and as been said previously, he could have misremembered, and it would be merely adding one stripe to the tiger). Niek's point about Silver Salmon is rather logical and indeed it's hard to know the date of De Lane Lea sessions (some sources say September 18th, but they could have easily said a random date). I'm not "attacking" Brian whatsoever, I mean that in most cases the witness is the least believable source, since memory can fail. When John Deacon said the exact date of Queen's first concert in West Germany it couldn't be more different to the one we all can confirm in books and Martin's website. Fred even confused the album Love Of My Life was included in and likewise Brian more than once has thought My Fairy King is on Queen II. Therefore, if one of them say "our first recording session was at De Lane Lea", it can easily be a mistake as well. On the other hand, the "he doesn't know it" thing is indeed a fact since it's there, that's evidence. Which can be interpreted in many ways of course but imho, Niek's theory stands on a considerably stronger foundation. |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 09:26 |
Seb - You are ASSUMING rather a LOT here. One: You assume it is a bass player that this remark alludes to. It could also be said to an engineer or a cutter etc. Two: You also assume that this song is like sheet music and complete. The remark could also refer to a single chord, note, or a completely new start. Three: It could well be Deacon's first attempt at the track, as, although with Queen a while, it does not prove that he had attempted this track before either. We do know John's first gig was: Queen: Live Surrey College, 2 July 1971 John Deacon’s First Queen gig For Information only - does not exist Live Surrey College, 2 July 1971 Freddie Bulsara: Vocals Brian May: Guitar Roger Taylor: Drums John Deacon: Bass Guitar De Lane Lea was recorded only two months later: Queen: Unreleased, De Lane Lea Demo Tape, September 1971 – February 1972 In The Beginning Bootleg CD Freddie Bulsara (vocals), Brian May (guitar), Roger Meddows Taylor (drums), Deacon John (bass). Recorded by Louie Austin. Keep Yourself Alive Night Comes Down Great King Rat Jesus Liar Polar Bear and Silver Salmon are NOT De-Lane Lea recordings. Queen: Queen UK CD EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 Recorded: Trident Studios, June – Nov 1972. Now: You will find the history of Queen in any number of publications, do your own homework, but I don't think you can re-write the history of Queen to suit you own theories based on assumption. For the final time NO pre-Queen studio Deacon recordings exist! As for Brian's memory - I feel this is unfair and now a license to doubt everything. While it is fair enough to make mistakes 30-odd years later "My Fairy King was on Queen 2", more contempory interviews show a much earlier/clearer picture. As I have said before: you seem to grasp at straws to demonstarte whatever proves your point, while dismissive of any other evidence. I feel that this evidence is like based on a survey of one comment. There are a myriad of publications and interviews out there - many are contemporary, many are first hand experiences - and some are by John Deacon himself, wherein he states that he was the first studio bass player (or do you think his memory is faulty too?). You really need to access, and digest ALL of this information, before you can make a final diagnosis, rather than make assumptions based on Brian's "A Night At The Opra" faux pass. |
| Fenderek 06.12.2005 09:29 |
John S Stuart wrote: For the final time NO pre-Queen studio Deacon recordings exist!What about the theory that "Silver Salmon" comes from De Lane Lea, when the band was testing the equipment? This line "he doesn't know it" is pretty strange as for 1973... Are we absolutely sure there's only 5 songs from De Lane Le- and more importantly- those are FINISHED demos, maybe "S.S." was a band recorded doing a live take, not a demo per se, therefore not regarded as De Lane Lea demo? And BTW- I'm not disputing existance of pre-John recording at all. |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 09:56 |
Do you guys know the story of De Lane Lea? Before Queen were signed to Trident, they had no record contract whatsoever. They were another struggling band. A friend of Brian's was working at a new studio and he invited Brian and his friend over to cut some demos, in exchange for testing this equipment. After the demos were cut, Queen made a few acetates for themselves, and reel to reel tapes to hawk around the various record companies. We know Brian owns one of these acetates, as it featured in one of the Record Collector magazines. As for the tapes, these were "hawked around the business" - Roger Taylor's words - not mine, and ended up at such places as Polydor, and Chrysalis. The tapes were complete, and held ALL the De lane Lea material. In the book "As It Began" by Jim Jenkins, it was believed that only four tracks were recorded at De Lane Lea. However, around mid-1980, one of these reel-to-reel tapes came to light. It was in the hands of an elderly Polydor rep, who sold it on the open market. The surprise was that the full tape contained not 4 - but 5 tracks. Since then this tape has been heavilly bootlegged. As the tape which appeared was undoctored, and it contained ALL the De Lane Lea material, and it was John who played on this showcase reel, we also know that NO pre-John Deacon material exists, and that both 'Silver Salmon' and 'Polar Bear' do not exist from this tape. Again, I suggest reading the publications: 'As It Began', 'Queen Before Queen', 'The Brian May Story', my very own 'Record Collector' features as a STARTING point. Then there are a number of recorded interviews from Brian, Roger and John, all independantly collaborating that the first time Queen ever performed in a studio was at De Lane Lea, and that this complete tape was used to obtian a contract by being submitted to various companies at the time. This is not MY story. These are NOT my words. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming, and I am surprised at the way some will pick at one small point, to demonstrate that an assumption is correct! NO pre-Queen Deacon. 'Polar Bear' and 'Silver Slmon' are NOT De Lane Lea. I suppose we caould always ask Brian, but, if he agreed, I guess his memory would be faulty! |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 10:08 |
Fenderek<br><h6>Not a REAL fan</h6> wrote:But it was NOT 1973.John S Stuart wrote: For the final time NO pre-Queen studio Deacon recordings exist!What about the theory that "Silver Salmon" comes from De Lane Lea, when the band was testing the equipment? This line "he doesn't know it" is pretty strange as for 1973... . De Lane Lea was recorded: De Lane Lea Demo Tape, September 1971 – February 1972 Queen: Queen (Eponymous) was recorded: UK CD EMI CDP 7 462 04 2 Trident Studios, June – Nov 1972. Therefore all of this pre-dates 1973, so both 'Silver Salmon' and 'Polar Bear' were recorded sometime between February - Nov 1972. (More specifically June - Nov 1972). A more logical explanation would be that Queen recorded all their own material first, and then used up the 'Smile' cover versions later in the sessions. This would mean that after getting their own stuff recorded, 'Doing All Right' (which ever spelling you prefer), 'Polar Bear', and 'Silver Salmon' (although not recorded by Smile - still written in part by Tim), could have been among the final Trident recordings. This too makes sense, but it is only an assumption - which also by the way can explain the 'he doesn't know it' comment. (which without Freddie naming John - as in 'John doesn't know it' - isn't a bit strange to refer to another band member as he - is all ambiguious anyway?) |
| Fenderek 06.12.2005 10:13 |
John S Stuart wrote: The tapes were complete, and held ALL the De lane Lea material. (...) As the tape which appeared was undoctored, and it contained ALL the De Lane Lea material, and it was John who played on this showcase reel, we also know that NO pre-John Deacon material exists, and that both 'Silver Salmon' and 'Polar Bear' do not exist from this tape.I absolutely believe it and I did read all the stuff you mentioned (RC articles included :) ) As you said- the tapes contained ALL the material that the band recorded as a demo. But before they got to do it- they were testing the equipment, right? What was that? I thought it was pretty much by playing music, as loud as possible. What did they play? Anything I guess... Now what if THAT was recorded? As a test... It is possible, isn't it? Maybe at that point they did a "live in the studio" version of "SS"- and to test the tape recorder or microphones or whatever- that was recorded as a reference, to TEST the equipment. Now than- that wouldn't be a demo that the band record in excghange for testing the euipment but more of a "side effect" of their work as equipment testers... It's justa stupid theory but I don't see it as completely impossible. Of course there is no evidence that it's true nor anything pointing that way (apart from assuming things) and I'm dfefinitely not getting excited by it. But the same way we DON'T KNOW where both "Polar Bear" and in my case specifically "SS" come from- we ASSUME it was Trident session... You're right about one thing though- the "he doesn't know it" may have been about new arrangement or sth... Still- it's fun to discuss things like that as opposed to Roger's sex tape or Brian's ego, isn't it? :) PS I was writing at the same time as you replied :) I guess you're right. One last thing- there's no way the band went into any studio between Trident and De Lane Lea, is it? |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 10:43 |
Fenderek: Sorry about my replies, re-reading them back to myself, they make me look angry and a bit of an arse - can I assure you that this is NOT the case, and that I am really happy to be part of this discussion. But, to avoid long mails, I am writing as much as I can, in as little a space as possible, so the 'niceties' seem to disappear, and I apologise for that. ;-) Back to the question: I do feel rather frustrated when assumption is placed as fact, or when theories arise - when infact a little research or homework would be enough to answer the question - and dispel the myth. I am not Greg; I do not have access to the archives. Therefore, I can (and do) make mistakes. I do not know all the answers to all the questions, so I am not the 'expert' that some people think me to be, and I really enjoy it when I learn from others. (Your own 'Keep Yourself Alive' acetate for example - thank you). But what I think I can bring to the party is over 30 years of experience. That is collecting, reading, listening, watching, debating, researching, searching, finding, writing etc, etc... With all this information swirling about in my head, I need to write it all down to keep track, so most of my stuff is on paper to help keep my memory from failing. My point is that even though I do not have a formal qualification in the subject (the study of 'Queen'), because of my academic background, my approach to 'Queen' has been like an intellectual discipline, and I need to cross-reference many sources before I am willing to make a statement as 'absolute'. This should be the norm for all academics, whether they study medicine or history, physics or English, it is impossible to make an assertion on the basis of one flimsy, ambiguous scrap of information. On balance, we need to weigh the evidence. I do not need to do that for you. We are all free thinkers and can do this for ourselves. So all I ask is where is your evidence? In return, all that can be brought to the table is an ambiguous, out of context phrase, that could be from anywhere, and from this we are expected to revise the complete Queen story? This is not to say that Seb is wrong, but unless other evidence comes to light, assumptions to the contrary are laughable, and I am not willing to swap my version for his based only on his interpretation. I suggest he weighs up a larger body of evidence first. Of course, if further evidence does come to light (like your acetate), then we CAN revise our thinking accordingly, but personally, I feel that so many people WANT Barry to appear on Queen material, that like 'Ewell' we are willing to suspend belief, to keep the mythology alive. Finally, I think the pre-Queen story is pretty much told, and apart from minor adjustments, there is really nothing big left to uncover. |
| Fenderek 06.12.2005 11:06 |
John S Stuart wrote: Fenderek: Sorry about my replies, re-reading them back to myself, they make me look angry and a bit of an arse - can I assure you that this is NOT the case, and that I am really happy to be part of this discussion. But, to avoid long mails, I am writing as much as I can, in as little a space as possible, so the 'niceities' seem to disappear, and I apologise for that. ;-)Nah- I know what it's like and didn't take it wrong way, no worries :) I do very often the same on Polish forum, writinga lot and fast- and sometimes sounding a bit harsher than I intend to... John S Stuart wrote: On balance, we need to weigh the evidence. I do not need to do that for you. We are all free thinkers and can do this for ourselves. So all I ask is where is your evidence?That's why I said I think you're right and... there is no evidence. it IS about assuming. It may be fun (it is) but it's merely just that. It's POSSIBLE theory but without anything even pointing that way. I guess the question behind the question is- where did we get the "SS" on the net (or in the circulation first) from? The answer to that could in theory lead to more answers about origins of that particular version, right? There are two around- one comes from acetate (am I right?), the other from... leaked from QP? Anyone know the story? Basically- I'm interested in origins of the version(s) that we fans enjoy- where did they come from and when did they appear? John S Stuart wrote: (Your own 'Keep Yourself Alive' acetate for example - thank you)Can't take credit for that. John, it wasn't me :) John S Stuart wrote: But what I think I can bring to the party is over 30 years of experience. that is collecting, reading, listening, watching, debating, researching, searching, finding, writing etc, etc..I can bring only about 5 :) But hey, debating, that's what we do, isn't it? I absolutely agree about the cross checking the whole informnation we got- that IS the only way. (BTW- something that Greg should have done with "Queen Live"... and obviously didn't). But by putting maybe crazy or at least a very easy to dismiss idea- well, I learned few things and... gained experience :) All in all- we still don't know (we don't, do we?) where SS and PB come from... I believe by tracking the origins of the version that circulates between collectors we could get to the bottom of this... Unless (and it's very possible) I'm missing some commonly known fact about this recording! John S Stuart wrote: Finally, I think the pre-Queen story is pretty much told, and apart from minor adjustments, there is really nothing big left to uncover.I guess it's the 30 years of experience against 5 :) But I still really hope that at some point something will be found :) Maybe not sth that will revise the whole story but actually produce even more evidence to back what we already know, but... something that we haven't heard and didn't know about existance yet :) But I think you're right. It's strange though. the pre-Queen story seems (as you say) to be pretty much already told. yet still so relatively little we know about sessions like let's say JAZZ... isn't that strange? |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 12:20 |
Fenderek/Ferdy: 1001 apologies. It was Ferdie who uploaded the 'Keep Yourself' acetate, and not Fenderek. How sorry am I? See what I mean about needing to keep things in notes! (But they both begin with a "Fe..."). |
| Ready_Coddie 06.12.2005 13:38 |
there is a DVD for 15 USD of Freddie performing with Ibex in 1969... it also includes Freddie's last live performance with Cliff Richard |
| Bohardy 06.12.2005 13:58 |
I think mainly what Fenderek's getting at here is the possibility that Silver Salmon was recorded at De Lane Lea, as opposed to Trident. And I think it fair to say that there's no more evidence that SS was recorded at Trident (as you say John) than there is to say it was recorded at De Lane Lea (as Fenderek and Seb are suggesting it could be). There's is absolutely undoubtedly no way that ALL that was recorded at De Lane Lea is the content of the 5 demo tracks that finally surfaced. To deny the possibility that anything extra to that was actually RECORDED - ie played by the band and comitted to tape - is to oblivious to the whole nature of the studio process. SS is obviously played live in one take and recorded as is, with no overdubs or fiddling around. This would have taken as long as the song lasts to do. But clearly, in this hypothesis of it coming from De Lane Lea, SS was not intended to be one of the demos that the band wanted to complete, and as such was not worked on and added to like the other 'official' songs for that session. And therefore it would not have been mixed and mastered, cut onto acetate and finalised onto a finished tape to be hawked around with the other demos. Saying that the 5 De Lane Lea demos is literally all that was recorded at those sessions is like saying that all that was recorded in The Miracle sessions is what features on the album and its accompanying singles. Clearly it wasn't. That's just what we have on the finished product: in the case of The Miracle sessions, an album and some singles, and in the case of the De Lane Lea sessions, 1 demo-tape. I think it's fair to say that it's most probable that the "He doesn't know it" - and it's not strange to use 'he' at all - refers to John, because the bass is almost entirely absent from the song, apart from a few tentative notes, indicative of someone who's not sure of what they're playing. And besides that, Bri and Rog seem to be fairly familiar with the arrangement, and there would not really be any need for any of the studio crew to know the song or arrangement in the case of such a simple live demo as this. So assuming it is John that's being referred to, and assuming it was recorded at the earliest possible time it could be at Trident (June 1972), it strikes me as a little odd that the other 3 band memers would be privy to Silver Salmon whilst John would be clueless about it. A newly formed band seeking its identity would constantly be playing together and seeking for and coming up with new things to play. Why would Silver Salmon be 'kept secret' from John for a year? And is not far more likely that Queen would try out half-baked versions of what are essentially Smile songs at a time much closer to the break-up of Smile, when those songs are fresh in the mind, and there is less Queen material to choose from? John, I understand all that you're saying about accurate sources and info, but in this case, we don't appear to have any accurate info that says SS came from Trident. So we can only make logical assumptions until something more conclusive comes along. To me it's more logical that SS comes from De Lane Lea than Trident. |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 14:09 |
Bohardy - your mail makes perfect sense - except that in recorded Interviews the band members say differently, and this is where I kind of baulk a bit. First: Unlike the 'Miracle' sessions, because it was free, De Lane Lea was a very hasty and quick recording session. As Lester suggested: The Five demos at De Lane Lea Studios were recorded on September 18, 1971. Now the session may or may not not have been completed that quickly, but if true, (or thereabouts), that is not a lot of time for the recording of both the demos and a lot of left-overs. Second: We either accept what the band members say, or we do not. We can not really pick and choose - especially if this is based on no more than a personal feeling. Personally, I can not accept that we listen to what 'Queen' have to say - then dismiss this info because WE know better. I know that Brian says "My Fairy King appears on Queen II", but I can argue against that - because I have the CD. But in areas I know nothing about, I have to rely on contemporary (and even back-dated) memories, and if the band claims one thing (and they are primary sources) who am I to disagree - especially if I have no contrary evidence? Third: As far as I am aware, the 'Polar Bear' and 'Silver Salmon' sessions originate, (or more accurately the bootlegs originate) from EMI. As the bootlegs themselves trace back to EMI, I do not see how they are related to De Lane Lea. Having said all that, I am not some sort of infallible source, and I may well be wrong, but, untill someone can come up with new evidence, other than a theory based on a doubtful phrase, the evidence seriously points to Trident's EMI first session. |
| PieterMC 06.12.2005 14:46 |
Ready_Coddie wrote: there is a DVD for 15 USD of Freddie performing with Ibex in 1969... it also includes Freddie's last live performance with Cliff RichardI'm sure you mean CD |
| Negative Creep 06.12.2005 14:49 |
I always thought the "Queen" version of Polar Bear was a home recording. Theres no way it comes from the same session as Silver Salmon, it just doesn't have the same audio properties. Also, I think SS is more likely to be from the album sessions, but from a different mixing session (for example, the difference between the album mixes and some of the instrumental re-mixes are astonoshing) |
| Sebastian 06.12.2005 15:46 |
> Seb - You are ASSUMING rather a LOT here. The pot calling a kettle black ;) > You assume it is a bass player that this remark alludes to. Not in the slightest way did I say it's a "fact" that he meant the bass player. What I did say (and it's true) is that Niek's theory makes much more sense (which still doesn't mean it's an absolute fact whatsoever). > It could also be said to an engineer or a cutter etc. Agreed. > You also assume that this song is like sheet music and complete. The remark could also refer to a single chord, note, or a completely new start. Agreed. > It could well be Deacon's first attempt at the track, as, although with Queen a while, it does not prove that he had attempted this track before either. Agreed. I hope you apply the same philosophy with everything (which often you do indeed, and that's good). > Now: You will find the history of Queen in any number of publications Yeah, sure... for instance, As It Began, where it's mentioned they did four songs. If it's already been confirmed that there is a fifth, why not a sixth, or a seventh, or a previous one?. As It Began marks about a thousand facts ... they could have made ten or twelve mistakes, and that (theoretically) might be one of them. > I don't think you can re-write the history of Queen to suit you own theories based on assumption. Similarly you can't write the history based on obscure quotes (no wonder why I deleted my website, because I made that mistake many times indeed). > As for Brian's memory - I feel this is unfair and now a license to doubt everything. Let me get this straight: we "can't" doubt any of Brian's statements even though it's been widely proved (through audio releases, printed interviews, soapbox, etc) that he "can" misremember. We "can't" doubt As It Began even if it's been already proved that it might have some (not many, but some) errors. I like (no irony intended) your way of thinking about the research and the possible options, for instance in the case of "he doesn't know it" you're absolutely right that "he" can be an engineer, etc, and "it" can be a chord etc. Likewise, Brian saying KYA at DLL was the first recording may be a mistake, a confusion (he said that many years afterwards) or, indeed, the truth. I'm not trying to say there are pre-Deacon studio recordings. I've got no idea if there are. But what I say is that the same quality control used for anybody's (not only mine) so-called assumptions should be taken to check yours (remember the good old "Fred wrote CLT on piano" deal). > As I have said before: you seem to grasp at straws to demonstarte whatever proves your point, while dismissive of any other evidence. That's entirely not what I'm saying. Again, I'm not implying Barry, Mike or Doug made studio recordings with Roger, Brian and Freddie. Frankly I don't know and I accept that you're much better informed than me on those points. What I see is that you're taking this personally and I don't mean that, nor I've arranged the "evidence" to "prove" whatever I say, this is not a competition (and I *assume* this time that you're not seeing it as that either). For instance, I strongly believe Bowie wrote the bass-line of Under Pressure. Can I be wrong? Of course. But in that case I feel I *can* diminish the counter-arguments simply because "my" point is John saying so in 1982 (some months after the song recording) vs what Brian (who as already proved doesn't have photographical memory) said nearly two decades later. > There are a myriad of publications and interviews out there - many are contemporary, many are first hand experiences - and some are by John Deacon himself, wherein he states that he was the first studio bass player (or do you think his memory is faulty too?). His memory can be faulty too and I said that in |
| Sebastian 06.12.2005 15:46 |
> because of my academic background, my approach to 'Queen' has been like an intellectual discipline, and I need to cross-reference many sources before I am willing to make a statement as 'absolute' And that's very good. > This should be the norm for all academics, whether they study medicine or history, physics or English, it is impossible to make an assertion on the basis of one flimsy, ambiguous scrap of information. 100% agreed. > I am not willing to swap my version for his based only on his interpretation. Never meant to ask you to do so. > I suggest he weighs up a larger body of evidence first. Now that's laughable: because I bought A Night At The Opera five years ago it automatically makes what I say a mixture of assumptions, attempts to re-write history and/or anti-Brian tantrums? and because you bought it thirty years ago it makes all that you say a "seriously and scientifically proved fact"? No offence intended, as I said before, most (not all, most) of your research is flawless. But there's still a teeny slice that is doubtable, although imo the entire pre-John thing doesn't make part of that fragment. > so many people WANT Barry to appear on Queen material I'm not part of those many. Neither I'm saying you're "accusing" me to be, but ... just for the record. > Personally, I can not accept that we listen to what 'Queen' have to say - then dismiss this info because WE know better. I'm not saying that "we" or "I" know the story better than themselves (although in a few aspects we totally do), but what I mean is that they (even if it's merely in a 1% of cases) can be wrong. Niek made a good point about that in the Beautiful Day thread. In that case I - personal opinion, not intended to be taken as fact - believe more my own ears (or Adam's, who is clearly an expert on that) than whatever Brian, Greg or whoever says, because memory can fail, while a recording is unchangeable: either Fred's voice sounds like 1980 or it doesn't. And yes, in that case I'd be "stubborn" enough to keep believing that the voice at least comes from the 1978-1981 period even if Brian, Greg or Christ Himself came and said it's from 1987, but that's MY case, not meaning to start an anti-quote campaign whatsoever. What I mean is that everybody (including me of course) should take those comments carefully, instead of "allright, that bloke said ... then it's that and end of story". > I have to rely on contemporary (and even back-dated) memories, and if the band claims one thing (and they are primary sources) who am I to disagree - especially if I have no contrary evidence? Yes. That's right. In the case of "KYA at DLL" as the first recording they ever made, the most direct evidence is that (at least among the ones displayed in this forum and in the foreseeable internet). Still it can't be considered an absolute 100% fact. It's "only" the "current conclusion". > the evidence seriously points to Trident's EMI first session Yes and no. Theoretically, EMI could have received De Lane Lea PB and SS demos from Jack Nelson - when he tried to get the band signed to them - and then kept them. I'm not an expert on early-Queen story so I can be wrong about those facts, please forgive me if I am. |
| FriedChicken 06.12.2005 17:42 |
"One: You assume it is a bass player that this remark alludes to. It could also be said to an engineer or a cutter etc." that COULD be ofcourse. But if Freddie says that the person who doesn't know it might play on, and when there is no bass on the track, makes it sound very logical that the bassplayer doesn't know who it is. To me it's very clear that it is John, because it matches his playing. But maybe as Fenderek suggested, maybe this WAS all recorded as the test to play a bit with the equipment. Since they play 2 songs right after each other (You can hear it if you have both songs) it really sounds like a Jam Session. |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 17:44 |
Gentlemen, why have we all forgotten this thread? Barry Mitchell himself states... link Barry Mitchell: Studio Material Q: When you were with the band, was there any talk at that time of going into a studio with you? It would be interesting to know what the extent of the band's ambition was at that time A: I dont ever remember any talk about recording. We were really focused on getting a full set of material together for live shows. However there was an obvious desire to take the band forward. Particularly on the part of Freddie (no surprise there). Barry Mitchell: Silver Salmon/Mad The Swine/Polar Bear Q: Do you recall tunes "Silver Salmon", "Mad The Swine" and "Polar Bear"? Did you guys ever play them live? It seems logical that when a new band wrote something- it was tried with an audience? A: I have never heard those songs. Q: If I'm right and it is you on Polar Bear you are quite distinguishable from John Deacon on bass. A: The only Polar Bear I know about was one I saw at London Zoo. Is Barry's memory failing too? If NOT - this confirms 100%: 1: Barry does NOT play on these tracks (Silver Salmon & Polar Bear). 2: Queen did not visit a recording studio before: 2 July 1971 (John Deacon's first gig - Live Surrey College) and that 'Silver Salmon', 'Polar Bear' and 'Mad The Swine' were all recorded post this date. 3: De Lane Lea demos began only two months later - September 1971 – February 1972 That takes care of the first half of the debate. Now that leaves the final question - De Lane Lea or Trident EMI? |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 18:16 |
Double post. Sorry. |
| Negative Creep 06.12.2005 18:18 |
As I said before, I don't believe Polar Bear is a studio recording. It sounds more like a home recording. If it was a studio recording, Freddie would have surely put more effort into the vocals - it sounds like he barely knows the song. It could also be a recording from a reharsal, that was dubbed onto a cassette at the time. Silver Salmon has a fuller sound, like the demos (but it of a higher quality than the recordings circulating from the de lane lea session) but could be from the album sessions mixed seperately from the album maybe. |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 18:28 |
Negative Creep wrote: As I said before, I don't believe Polar Bear is a studio recording. It sounds more like a home recording. If it was a studio recording, Freddie would have surely put more effort into the vocals - it sounds like he barely knows the song. It could also be a recording from a reharsal, that was dubbed onto a cassette at the time. Silver Salmon has a fuller sound, like the demos (but it of a higher quality than the recordings circulating from the de lane lea session) but could be from the album sessions mixed seperately from the album maybe.Good points sir, but, they are only assumptions - why focus on things that could be, rather than things as they are? Q: Now, is there any possible chance that 'Polar Bear' and 'Silver Salmon' are home recordings or demos? A: We know 'Polar Bear' is definitely a studio recording. We get this from the banter at the start of the session (including the famous - 'Take 2' run-in). 'Silver Salmon' has similar 'in studio' banter. This would strongly suggest both are studio versions - and NOT home recordings. Evidence: link When you have access to 'non-crappy' versions - life becomes so much easier. (PS: This mail is not a dig at anyone - far beit from Negative Creep. This is EVIDENCE to show this is NOT a home recording, and that those who claim otherwise - are mistaken. Perhaps now we can lay many myths and assumptions to bed?). PPS: Catch your own 'Silver Salmon'! PPPS: I also hope this kills the 'De Lane Lea' and demonstrates this is a Trident recording - but I bet it won't - as I don't have a Brian May quote to accompany this. (Oh I forgot - even that would not count!!!). As far as I am aware, this 'Polar Bear' and the 'Silver Salmon' sessions originate, (or more accurately the bootlegs originate) from EMI. As the bootlegs themselves trace back to EMI, I do not see how they are related to De Lane Lea. |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 20:43 |
Is this the first writer/Queenzone/Queenonline three way discussion? If so, it is a bit historic don't you think? (I also hope that you now agree 'Polar Bear' is indeed a studio recording!). |
| Wilki Amieva 06.12.2005 23:40 |
Going back to Silver Salmon, I want to add some evidence... 1) From the recording source. If, as John points, it comes from EMI, then the chance of it being very early is slim. We must remember that EMI only came very late in the picture, when QUEEN had ALREADY RECORDED their first album. In fact, most known acetates from both De Lane Lea demos and QUEEN Sessions were cut at Trident. There is one Liar EMIDisc with an exclusive edit from the regular version, but I guess that it was made very late when they were considering the single. And that it is certainly not the case with Silver Salmon (nor Polar Bear). Of course, there is always the chance that Trident decided to made that early acetate/tape at EMI's recording plant instead of using theirs (much like Ferdy's Keep Yourself Alive acetate from Master Room), but I rather go with the most simple explanation. And it being given to EMI by Trident when they have the De Lane Lea tapes already, just doesn't make much sense to me. Both Silver Salmon and Polar Bear are mostly "live in studio" takes (no overdubs whatsoever), so they grow pale in comparison to the De Lane Lea demos. 2) From the recording itself. At its very end, a very brief percussion intro (similar, if not identical, to the one from Liar) can be heard, and then the piano intro of Seven Seas Of Rhye clearly begins, and its played very fast (more like a live rendition or like the version on QUEEN II rather to the one on QUEEN). It is generally assumed that Seven Seas Of Rhye... was one of the last songs recorded by QUEEN for the debut album, and perhaps one of the few composed for it/in its sessions, if we consider that most of the others had been already in their live repertoire for quite a while (and taking into account that My Fairy King should be as early as Mercury's nickname). So this reinforces what it is said before. Of course, the song could also post-date QUEEN Sessions (more like a warm-up for QUEEN II Sessions) ...or couldn't it? |
| John S Stuart 06.12.2005 23:50 |
Wilki wrote: Going back to Silver Salmon, I want to add some evidence... Of course, they can also post-date QUEEN Sessions (more like a warm-up for QUEEN II Sessions) ...or cannot they?That Wiki, is a very likely scenario. Moreso than pre-Queen sessions (considering that White Queen began life in 1968). It just seems that everyone was so damned adamant that all these things are pre-debut LP (when in fact a mislabled MP3 is behind all of this. Why some folks would prefer to believe mislabled tracks is beyond me), I drew my line in the sand at the eponymous album. Now while I flatly refuse to shift below that date, I could certainly be persuaded after. As you suggest, the "Seven Seas..." run has been ignored, but that is not surprising - as it does not suit the debate. I think that I need to condense this thread, and show the development of the band in maticulous detail. (Perhaps at the weekend), as long as we stick to facts, and avoid assumptions - I guess we should be OK. |
| Wilki Amieva 07.12.2005 00:16 |
John S Stuart wrote: Now while I flatly refuse to shift below that date, I could certainly be persuaded after. As you suggest, the "Seven Seas..." run has been ignored, but that is not surprising - as it does not suit the debate. I think that I need to condense this thread, and show the development of the band in maticulous detail. (Perhaps at the weekend), as long as we stick to facts, and avoid assumptions - I guess we should be OK.I could not possibily agree more with you. In fact, I just wanted to show some factual evidence that had been omitted so far in the discussion: the situation with known acetates and the Seven Seas Of Rhye ending. In my humble opinion, both facts limit the possible options. Anyway, I am certainly NOT trying to convince anyone of anything as I cannot be sure myself. I just want to stretch the possibilities as far as I can. By the way, as far as I know Wiki is an encyclopedia. ;-) |
| John S Stuart 07.12.2005 03:11 |
Wilki wrote:By the way, as far as I know Wiki is an encyclopedia. ;-)I know - but it's late - and I'm tired! |
| Sebastian 07.12.2005 06:11 |
Something else: the fact John didn't know it (*assuming* it was him Fred referred to, which would be the most logical explanation) doesn't mean it's definitely shortly after he came. Indeed someone (e.g. Brian, Roger, or John Harris) could have suggested "hey, let's play Silver Salmon" in 1973. Note that this is only a theory, and I'm not trying to "re-write" history just to make it match with it whatsoever. |
| Fenderek 07.12.2005 07:46 |
Man, such an interesting discussion and the posts order's fucked up... |
| John S Stuart 07.12.2005 12:41 |
Fenderek<br><h6>Not a REAL fan</h6> wrote: Man, such an interesting discussion and the posts order's fucked up...I noticed that too, can't it be fixed? |
| John S Stuart 07.12.2005 18:26 |
Wilki wrote: Going back to Silver Salmon, I want to add some evidence... 2) From the recording itself. At its very end, a very brief percussion intro (similar, if not identical, to the one from Liar) can be heard, and then the piano intro of Seven Seas Of Rhye clearly begins, and its played very fast (more like a live rendition or like the version on QUEEN II rather to the one on QUEEN). It is generally assumed that Seven Seas Of Rhye... was one of the last songs recorded by QUEEN for the debut album, and perhaps one of the few composed for it/in its sessions...This is what Wilki is talking about... (Stick on repeat play!) link Is this really from 1977? |
| John S Stuart 07.12.2005 18:46 |
Double Post - sorry! |
| FriedChicken 07.12.2005 19:09 |
It could be that Freddie, or Brian or a sound engineer suggested Freddie to play Seven Seas of Rhye. In fact it makes as much sense as not playing a song for 2.5 years, and then suddenly play it |
| The Real Wizard 07.12.2005 22:11 |
Let's keep the Silver Salmon discussion in one topic: link |
| Queenland 11.12.2005 18:19 |
John S Stuart wrote: Famous Jug Band: Chameleon UK LP Chameleon (Liberty) Original LP released on EMI/ Liberty label. 1970. Produced/Backing vocals Roger Taylor Sunshine Possibilities CD Extra Tracks: God Knows ChameleonVery interesting, I never heard about this LP. Is Roger credited somewhere (back sleeve, label) on it ? |
| Seven_Seas_Of_Rhye II 31.03.2006 20:45 |
WHAT IS THIS LP??????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Sebastian 06.08.2011 08:21 |
Over five years later, it's nice to revisit this topic. For the record, some mistakes all of us had made concerning those things: * De Lane Lea recordings spread through weeks during Autumn 1971. The famous and broadly cited '18th September' remark was most likely a random date some internet user came up with, and the rest believed it to be true. * There was, of course (as Bohardy and I had suggested) A LOT MORE recorded at DLL than those five demos. Polar Bear could be one of them, or maybe not. According to Louis Austin (who engineered those sessions), there was at least one song with synthesiser (so the whole 'no synths' thing came post-1971). * Oh, and BTW, regarding the accuracy of Brian's memory ... he's also said there was no studio version of Hangman :D |
| DragonflyTrumpeter83 07.08.2011 07:35 |
Thanks for update, Seb! :D |
| GT 08.08.2011 01:49 |
Has anybody here got the new re-mastered 'Queen' CD? If so, from the sleeve notes myself and Greg did you will know when the De Lane Lea sessions were recorded. |
| Benn Kempster 08.08.2011 07:34 |
GT - did those dates come from session logs or Brian's memory of the dates? |
| Sebastian 08.08.2011 09:43 |
Good point. On the one hand we've got to trust the memory, forty years after the fact, of a person who's claimed: * They didn't play It's Late live. * They didn't play It's a Hard Life live. * There's no studio version of Hangman. * My Fairy King is on Queen II. * Fairy Feller's Master-Stroke was recorded at Wessex. * Love of My Life is from Sheer Heart Attack. * Love of My Life is from A Day at the Races. * John played six-string guitar on the live version of Back Chat. * There's an organ on The Wedding March. * A Night at the Opera was recorded in 1976. * John played a Fender Rhodes on YMBF. * He never played a Flying V live. * Freddie didn't use Steinway pianos. And on the other we've got to trust the accuracy of people who've written that: * 'In the quiet of the night let our candle always burn...' is part of the LPDA lyrics. * MTRNR was not Roger's first song to be included on a Queen album. * Freddie wrote Feelings (on the SHA liner notes), then contradict themselves by crediting it to Brian (NOTW EP). * Spread Your Wings was the third single released from NOTW. * MMB was broadcast on SOTS two years after SOTS had been cancelled. * Bob Harris worked on Radio One in 1977. * John arrived in July 1971. The website contradicts it and claims March. * SASS was recorded in June/July 1979, and then the *early* rehearsal was made half a year *later*. Not to mention they put Queen II on the 1975 exhibition, and the LOADS AND LOADS of mistakes Greg's book's got. So ... I'm sorry, but it is VERY logical to doubt the 'December 1971' claim either way (be it Brian's words or GB's and GT's). Especially considering Louis Austin, who was there (and probably remembers it better as it was his ONLY session with Queen, whereas it's understandable for Brian to forget about one of the many songs he recorded in his life), claims it was before winter. |
| The Real Wizard 08.08.2011 12:09 |
^ what he said. |