| John S Stuart 19.11.2005 05:01 |
I am quite shocked and disappointed by this thread. link I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years, and he is a very nice hard-working decent type of person. It was indeed Barry who genuinely advertised HIS tape on e-bay, and this is NOT some sort of a scam. He is not a fraud, cheat or hoaxster, and I am sure that he would feel both hurt and insulted at such accusations. Certainly, all that has been written about him in the past is TRUE, and nothing has been made up or falsified. In reality he is quite shy, and, apart from his recent foray in Queenzone, for over quarter of a century, he has basically kept quiet about his time in the band. The Ewell tape came to light about 10 years ago. Ken Testi recorded the entire set on a Grundig tape recorder, but only the Rock and Roll Medley remains, and this IS a copy of THAT tape. This tape was given to Barry, and I assure you that copies sold, are from his original. There is no fraud or attempted con here. Barry recalls playing the bass at the gig, and is able to exactly spot himself not only within the music, but recollects the event in terms of stage presence, acoustics, and audience etc. As to similarities with Golders Green, like Sir GH, I have never 'bench-tested' one with the other. I too have always gone down the road that the early 'rock 'n roll' medleys were similar, so I have never given it a second thought (or listen). I would still argue that the tapes are indeed different, and that this tape has been recognised, and confirmed by Barry and Ken to be from Ewell technical college, and for me that is the end of the discussion. However, for those who have analysed both, and still claim it is Golders Green, all I can say in return, is that it may be possible that the tape IS Golder's Green, and that over the years memories have become muddled, and what Ken Testi believes to be a recording from Ewell College, was in fact taken from the Golder's Green gig. This is not to say that one is lying or cheating, but, that over the years a genuine mistake has been made, and that in good faith, this error has been perpetuated over the years, but, that for me still does not answer two key points: First: Barry genuinely believes he is on this. He can hear himself, and HE claims it is genuine. Of course, Brian May would be on it - as he too was part of Queen, but I think, it would be very, very difficult to pass-off Golders Green as Ewell to him, as surely, he WOULD know the difference? (It must be like looking at oneself from an old photograph). This (to me) is pretty powerful testimony, and I would find this very, very difficult to dismiss. Second: Why tape-record Golders Green from the audience, when it was being broadcast live anyway? I know that a member of the public could make an audience bootleg - but why would management and crew do the same? Until I hear any different, and can have really good answers to those questions, in my mind, it still remains legitimate. Finally, so that this reply was not lost in a quagmire of different ideas, I have given it this new thread so it is easier to find. |
| Serry... 19.11.2005 05:13 |
If it was real Barry then there are no any problems, IMHO. Everyone can be mistaken, he's not a Queen lives expert therefore I only pity about money of guys who bought this recording. Mr Mitchell provided for us some facts about early Queen days, answered the questions - and for me it means much more than any live recordings in bad quality. But if it was 'fake' Barry on QZ... This damned modern rule "trust no-one!" still works :( |
| little foetus 19.11.2005 05:20 |
Thank you for your long answer, John...
John S Stuart wrote: First: Barry genuinely believes he is on this. He can hear himself, and HE claims it is genuine. Of course, Brian May would be on it - as he too was part of Queen, but I think, it would be very, very difficult to pass of Golders Green as Ewell to him, as surely, he WOULD know the difference? (It must be like looking at oneself from an old photograph).Did you listen to the two recordings I put on Queenzone? I would love to think it is a genuine recording but it seems to me there are really too many details in common into these two recordings. Just Barry's recording is mp3-sourced (By the way, i don't explain this fact too) and seems more generated (don't understand it too) Second: Why tape-record Golders Green from the audience, when it was being broadcast live anyway? I know that a member of the public could make an audience bootleg - but why would management and crew do the same?)I have already tell that but i'm repeating: I'm quite sure it is a soundboard recording (can you hear any close audience voice?) but the sound is much worse than the recording I have and which is circulated. Remember a frequency analysis has been made and it is for sure a mp3-sourced recording. Well, I still really don't know what to think. And if you assume it is the real Barry Mitchell who sold it and sold the golders green hippodrome instead of the ewell recording by mistake, it is much more confusing to me. I have some questions too: - Why is it much worse than our recordings (slowed and high generation)? - Why mp3? (although I would think Barry is maybe not very familiar with lossless or mp3 files) - Does everyone has the same recording or are there people with other stuff than this one? |
| John S Stuart 19.11.2005 05:30 |
Serry... wrote: If it was real Barry then there are no any problems, IMHO. Everyone can be mistaken, he's not a Queen lives expert therefore I only pity about money of guys who bought this recording. Mr Mitchell provided for us some facts about early Queen days, answered the questions - and for me it means much more than any live recordings in bad quality. But if it was 'fake' Barry on QZ... This damned modern rule "trust no-one!" still works :(Serry, I can assure you - 100% guaranteed - that both the e-bay advert and the 'Ewell '71' tape are both from the very 'REAL' Barry Mitchell. Somethings in life are more certain than others - and this definitely is one one of them! |
| John S Stuart 19.11.2005 05:44 |
little foetus wrote: Did you listen to the two recordings I put on Queenzone? I would love to think it is a genuine recording but it seems to me there are really too many details in common into these two recordings.No - I have not listened, but I will do. little foetus wrote: Just Barry's recording is mp3-sourced (By the way, i don't explain this fact too) and seems more generated (don't understand it too)But Barry's ORIGINAL was not for sale - it was a CD COPY of that tape. For example: It is possible that he just copied his tape onto PC before turning this into a CD, or he attempted to clean it up, I do not know. I can NOT answer for Barry - only he can answer for himself, but, I personally see no problems with converting a tape to CD via MP3 on a PC. I do not agree with your second point below though, "I would think Barry is maybe not very familiar with lossless or mp3 files", why not - he is a professional musician after all! This MAY be the reason why the CD is MP3 sourced - because it came from an MP3 copy. But, that is a guess, as I do not know for sure. little foetus wrote: - Why is it much worse than our recordings (slowed and high generation)? - Why mp3? (although I would think Barry is maybe not very familiar with lossless or mp3 files) - Does everyone has the same recording or are there people with other stuff than this one?I do not know. I am as keen to get to the bottom of this as everyone else is. All I can do is repeat the same answer I gave to Serry above, and say that this tape is indeed the personal property of the real Barry Mitchell, and that he believes it to be genuine. Sorry, but other than that, I am really out of my depth. |
| stark 19.11.2005 06:01 |
Dear everyone I feel I have to comment on the subject of frequency analysing audio files. I am a sound and mastering engineer, and there is absolutely no way to tell the source of a recording (mp3, wav, aiff etc) from a simple frequency analysis. My guess is that whoever has done the analysis assumed that because the file is poorly recorded (compared to a studio recording) it must be an mp3. The only way to tell if something is mp3-sourced is, like anything else, TO USE YOUR EARS! mp3s sound horrible compared to their WAV or AIFF equivalents, and not only can computers be fooled, but there is no program on earth as sophisticated as the human ear. I really hope this ends this discussion, but I'm sure some people will doubt me. If you do, please take the time to research the facts. The program used was almost certainly Har-bal, and a demo of it can be found at link. Use it - see what happens. Cheers, stark |
| Penetration_Guru 19.11.2005 06:13 |
1. Ken Testi was out of the picture by Sept 73. 2. Ken Testi seems to me to have both a good memory AND notes made at the time. 3. Presumably Barry has owned his original since before Golder's Green took place. I haven't compared these two yet due to the rapidshare thing, but while I'd expect the medley to be a similar arrangement most nights, to have identical audience response (and two bass players playing the same bassline) would seem unlikely. |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2005 08:12 |
I am 100% sure, this is the Golders Green 73 medley. Even while being 100% sure, I sped up the "Ewell" recording, and played it at the same time as the Golders Green recording, and they were identital for all 7 minutes. So how can Barry "hear himself" on this recording? In my post in the other topic, I raised the possibilities that Barry could have shared the wrong recording by an accident, and that he could have somehow been under the impression that it was indeed him playing on this recording. I then raised the possibility that maybe it wasn't Barry posting here. Never once did I say I believed it was true, nor did I point my finger. So please, don't accuse me of cutting Barry to shreds, as the_hero did in the other topic. To the_hero, you need to brush up on your people skills, or perhaps your English skills, if you think what I wrote was accusatory or judgemental of him as a person. Anyway, back to Barry... I guess over the years, you just plain forget things. Maybe when I'm 50+, I'll understand better. But I'm really glad to hear it was indeed Barry! |
| John S Stuart 19.11.2005 09:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I am 100% sure, this is the Golders Green 73 medley. Even while being 100% sure, I sped up the "Ewell" recording, and played it at the same time as the Golders Green recording, and they were identital for all 7 minutes. So how can Barry "hear himself" on this recording? In my post in the other topic, I raised the possibilities that Barry could have shared the wrong recording by an accident, and that he could have somehow been under the impression that it was indeed him playing on this recording. I then raised the possibility that maybe it wasn't Barry posting here. Never once did I say I believed it was true, nor did I point my finger. So please, don't accuse me of cutting Barry to shreds, as the_hero did in the other topic. To the_hero, you need to brush up on your people skills, or perhaps your English skills, if you think what I wrote was accusatory or judgemental of him as a person. Anyway, back to Barry... I guess over the years, you just plain forget things. Maybe when I'm 50+, I'll understand better. But I'm really glad to hear it was indeed Barry!Sir GH, I am not too sure if your post was directed at me or not - so let me explain; All I wrote was: "...like Sir GH, I have never 'bench-tested' one with the other. I too have always gone down the road that the early 'rock 'n roll' medleys were similar, so I have never given it a second thought (or listen)." This was only used as a factual example, I did not say (or imply) anything else. So certainly I did not accuse you (or anyone else) of "cutting Barry to shreds". I certainly verified the tape as genuine, but only because it was given to me as Ewell Technical College, and Barry verified that HE was the bassist. If it turns out that this is not the case, and it is in fact Golder's Green, then I am just as much mistaken as every one else (including Barry himself), and although I feel like I am left with "egg on my face", I can assure you that I do not believe anyone set out with a grand hoax in mind, and that this a genuine and not a malicious mistake. |
| tilomagnet 19.11.2005 09:04 |
John S Stuart wrote: I can NOT answer for Barry - only he can answer for himself, but, I personally see no problems with converting a tape to CD via MP3 on a PC. I do not agree with your second point below though, "I would think Barry is maybe not very familiar with lossless or mp3 files", why not - he is a professional musician after all! This MAY be the reason why the CD is MP3 sourced - because it came from an MP3 copy. But, that is a guess, as I do not know for sure.Well, if he intentionally sold mp3s, then he did indeed rip the buyers off. |
| John S Stuart 19.11.2005 09:13 |
tilomagnet wrote:OK. That is for Barry to answer. But I don't see how selling MP3's of one's own material is ripping someone off, so I disagree there.John S Stuart wrote: I can NOT answer for Barry - only he can answer for himself, but, I personally see no problems with converting a tape to CD via MP3 on a PC. I do not agree with your second point below though, "I would think Barry is maybe not very familiar with lossless or mp3 files", why not - he is a professional musician after all! This MAY be the reason why the CD is MP3 sourced - because it came from an MP3 copy. But, that is a guess, as I do not know for sure.Well, if he intentionally sold mp3s, then he did indeed rip the buyers off. If however, he was DELIBERATELY passing off some-one elses material as his own, that is a different story. But, as I have said, I do not believe that to be the case. |
| tilomagnet 19.11.2005 09:19 |
stark wrote: I am a sound and mastering engineer, and there is absolutely no way to tell the source of a recording (mp3, wav, aiff etc) from a simple frequency analysis. My guess is that whoever has done the analysis assumed that because the file is poorly recorded (compared to a studio recording) it must be an mp3.Of course it's possible to tell if a file is mp3(or lossy in general) sourced from a frequency analysis. As I wrote already in another topic here sometime ago, it doesn't depend at all on the equipement that was originally used to tape a show or on the quality of the recording how the FA looks like. A very poor sounding and distorted audience tape can have an FA that looks similar to an official release. stark wrote: The only way to tell if something is mp3-sourced is, like anything else, TO USE YOUR EARS! mp3s sound horrible compared to their WAV or AIFF equivalents, and not only can computers be fooled, but there is no program on earth as sophisticated as the human ear.If you got a show and want to find out if it's mp3 sourced or not, all you can do is to run a frequency analysis, because naturally it's impossible to find out only from listening to the show if you can't compare it to a true lossless copy. |
| YourValentine 19.11.2005 09:24 |
Thanks for your response, John. I am not accusing anybody before I know all facts. I sent the file to Riku who has professional software and will compare it to Golders Green for me. If he says the two are the same recording (I am actually already taking Sir Gh's word for it) I still give Mr. Mitchell the benefit of a doubt and ask him before I call him any names. It's somehow unlikely that he cheated on purpose - it was only a matter of time until someone noticed that the two recordings are identical. However, it would be nice if Alex Solan would let us hear his copy which is apparently different and which he wanted to share anyway. When I spend money on ebay I always know there is a risk and it's my own risk. Like John Stuart I believed it was a genuine copy and we have to trust people when we have reason to believe they deserve our trust. When it turns out they are not honest, it's just bad luck. But I think it's worth an email and give Mr. Mitchell a chance to clear it up. Just as a side note: it was not the hero who did all the name calling in the other thread, it was a newbie. |
| A Word In Your Ear 19.11.2005 09:50 |
A Word In Your Ear wrote: Yes, just had a listen to my copy, with autograph & all. "Barry? TOSSER!!!!" I've been conned, it's Golders Green alright & I left him +feedback at ebay!!! Dam!!!! no wonder it was Paypal payments only. I hope this guy who is passing himself off as Barry Mitchell, gets whats coming to him, fingers crossed!!!!! After reading John Stuarts post re:- Barry Mitchell, I do now believe that the Guy selling on ebay is the real Barry Mitchell & I am deeply sorry for my harsh comment before. But the fact still remains that CD is "Golders Green". Now as john Stuart says, Barry only got the recording 10 years ago. 1995'ish from a recording 20 years before that. Could he really tell that it was himself playing Bass, or did he go on just what he was told, believing that it was himself. 20 years + is along time ago & strike me down for saying this, all you Bass players out there. who can really tell one Bass player from another? So as you can see I was a little miffed in paying £50+ for a piece of history, that turned out to be false & the fact that I already had a better copy of Golders Green for free (Thankyou Queenzoners) I'm thankfull for the Autograph, but for £50+???? What Barry could do is refund the money to all the people who bought from him, we'll see. Barry's ebay Photo of himself now and the old photo he was also selling does look like the same guy, but I can't really tell from the side profile photo of him in the book "as it began". I say again, Sorry Barry for my harsh words, but I didn't get what I paid for. |
| Smitty 19.11.2005 09:55 |
eddieshore wrote: barry mitchell was just some idiot that played bass in queen before queen was really "queen." barry mitchell is a nobody as far as im concerned.That seems a bit too harsh. Just my opinion. Sorry, that is WAY too harsh. If it really was someone parading around to be Barry (which I don't believe to be true anyome after hearing from JSS) you don't insult someone because they are related to the problem. Regarding an accomlished musician as "an idiot" and "a nobody" even though they didn't have the same success as Freddie, Brian, Roger, and John is really immature and rude. It isn't even related to the problem. I believe you should shut up. |
| YourValentine 19.11.2005 09:59 |
@ A Word in Your Ear please snd me an email by clicking on the "contact us" link in the right upper corner of this page. I think we should team up and contact the seller. Maybe we can come to a friendly solution. |
| Lemmy 19.11.2005 09:59 |
eddieshore wrote: barry mitchell was just some idiot that played bass in queen before queen was really "queen." barry mitchell is a nobody as far as im concerned.you kiss your mother with that mouth? What a cocky little "Alan MP" you are. You might want to learn a little respect. No human being is allowed that kind of attack. |
| Serry... 19.11.2005 10:33 |
eddieshore wrote: nobody here has ever met him.Read my reply in other thread about this case! (P.S. by John about Barry: "I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years") |
| Smitty 19.11.2005 10:56 |
Serry... wrote:We might as well ignore this total n00b eddieshore. He's a total idiot. He's probably not even worth replying to.eddieshore wrote: nobody here has ever met him.Read my reply in other thread about this case! (P.S. by John about Barry: "I have personally got to know Barry Mitchell over the last few years") |
| Rick 19.11.2005 11:29 |
I already mailed Barry about this. Still, I don't give an opinion, unless he will not mail me back. I still don't believe that this was a fake Barry Mitchell. He said he also worked with Alan Parsons (yes, the one of Alan Parsons Project). He said he had also some recordings of that too. |
| stark 19.11.2005 11:51 |
If you got a show and want to find out if it's mp3 sourced or not, all you can do is to run a frequency analysis, because naturally it's impossible to find out only from listening to the show if you can't compare it to a true lossless copy. News to me. I'm wondering if you understand the principle behind mp3s; could you tell me what you look for in an analysis to determine the source? |
| tilomagnet 19.11.2005 12:25 |
stark wrote: News to me. I'm wondering if you understand the principle behind mp3s; could you tell me what you look for in an analysis to determine the source?Mp3 encoding cuts out all the high and low frequencies of the music in order to make the file smaller. After the mp3 encoding you are left with an approximation of the original file/recording. It sounds similar(more or less depending on the codec and bit rates), but as mentioned it's just an approximation of what the original recording sounded like. This result of an mp3 encoding, i.e. the lack of higher frequencies(usually from about 16khz onwards) can be clearly seen when you run a frequency analysis. A lossless file has a continouus spectral line from 0 to 44khz without any drops or cuts in between, a lossy file doesn't have a continouus spectral line, but usually shows a drop of frequencies above 16khz, because these frequencies are now missing as they've been thrown out in the lossy encoding. Here is an example: link link Both are audience recordings from the '70ies, sound is similar. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.11.2005 12:45 |
I will not pass judgement on Barry nor on anyone else, as that is not my intention, but I have analysed the recording contained in the CD provided via eBay and I have some 'unfortunate' conclusions: 1) The track is mono, has some hiss and also heavy 'warm' saturation (generally in the bass range). This is what is expected from an open reel tape recording of the late '60s/early '70s. 2) There is no sonic indication that it comes from the audience. The audience/ambience sound is minimal with no near shouts/claps/etc. nor structural echoes. In conclusion, this is pretty much a 'dry' mix so I find it quite impossible to be recorded from the audience. 3) The sound changes equalization at 2:55 (a heavy cut in the high frequencies). It could be explained by a change on the position of the microphone but there are no associated microphone noises. In fact there are no microphone artifacts whatsoever in the whole track. 4) The recording has an exponential decay on frequencies over 16 kHz. And just before anyone asks: the tape itself will NEVER produce that spectral response - no matter how aged and/or damaged it is. I am not saying that this do not come from a tape, just that it is pretty obvious that SOMETHING happened to the sound. Anyway, the position of the decay curve is typical from a 320 kbps mp3. I might post a comparison later. 5) The track is definetely from the 1973.09.13 Golders Green Hippodrome broadcasting, just a little slower. Not only the music and comments are the very same, but also the audience response and the ambience noise are exact matches aswell. A very good example are Brian's mumble and 'accidental' chord at about 4:07. All that is unquestionable evidence that the track on the CD has nothing to do with the 1971 recording as in the story we have heard so many times. I have no explanation for all this. I am as shocked as some of you. |
| stark 19.11.2005 12:47 |
Guys, please, the program I mentioned in my first post is a professional mastering application. Download the demo at link (it's free) and run an analysis of any commercial track. No track in existence will display a straight curve - everything has significant peaks and troughs, with more energy in bass regions that at higher frequencies, so producing a downward slope as frequency rises. Yes, mp3 does remove tops and bottoms, but if you convert a WAV file to mp3 and analyse both, you'll see that the curve exhibits only a small difference. The biggest thing that the mp3 format does is remove depth (because it attempts to remove only 'perceptually insignificant' information - as a result of the masking effect), so has little impact on the frequency curve resulting from an analysis. Again, please download the demo and find out for yourselves: I'm not arguing an opinion - this is the way mp3 works. |
| Smitty 19.11.2005 13:04 |
eddieshore wrote: thomasquinn you're just too stupid to tell the difference between a lossless recording and a compressed piece-of-shit recording.eddieshore, you are being called immature by a 13-year-old. YOU ARE IMMATURE. |
| tilomagnet 19.11.2005 13:05 |
stark wrote: Yes, mp3 does remove tops and bottoms, but if you convert a WAV file to mp3 and analyse both, you'll see that the curve exhibits only a small difference.Well, I did several times and it's definately not true that there is only a small difference, the difference between lossless and lossy files is very obvious in fact. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.11.2005 13:16 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm afraid I agree with Stark. The main difference between an MP3 and a lossless file's spectrum I notice when working with Cool Edit is the audible depth. I cannot see any visual change to the curves, apart from the sudden cut at top and bottom which can be present, but which is also present with tapes.You both are wrong. Lossy compression formats do significatively affect the frequency response of a recording. The main feature it introduces is an exponential decay of all frequencies above a certain one which depends on how much the file is compressed (in other words, it depends on its bitrate). As for the Cool Edit/Audition frequency spectrum display, please remember to check "Linear View". |
| Rick 19.11.2005 13:31 |
It is Barry Mitchell who sells it at E-bay. |
| YourValentine 19.11.2005 13:51 |
Alex, maybe it's the same recording. "- here on queenzone, same filename, different format and file extension: • Jan_9th_1971.flac" that's how I named the file I have been sharing in the hub. I encoded it from the audio CD I was sent by Barry Mitchell. I shared it after Barry had sold about 3 more CDs. I got a message in the hub telling me that the file was mp3 sourced. I was a bit surprised but not too bothered because it can easily happen that someone wo is not familiar with compressed formats makes an mp3. Wilki, thanks very much for your in-depth analysis. I'll email the seller now. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.11.2005 14:05 |
stark wrote: No track in existence will display a straight curve - everything has significant peaks and troughs, with more energy in bass regions that at higher frequencies, so producing a downward slope as frequency rises.Well, the main issue is the CONTINUITY of the line. It has nothing to do with it being straight or full of peaks and valleys. Anyway, how do you describe a 'straight curve'? ;-) |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2005 17:26 |
John S Stuart wrote: Sir GH, I am not too sure if your post was directed at me or not - so let me explainCertainly it was not! I was referring specifically to the_hero, and anyone else who would later say something as he did. I hope I didn't come across as naysaying Mr. Mitchell, as that was not my intent at all. |
| inu-liger 20.11.2005 02:52 |
Wow, I'm amazed that for once, there is something extremely controversial and ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with me for a change! Sorry, but I had to say that. And I personally believe that it was the real Barry selling it on eBay. In fact, I almost had him stop selling it entirely because of a stupid comment I made about having it shared freely on QZ, which greatly upset him. |
| Wilki Amieva 20.11.2005 07:38 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-The Blu-Ray Fanatic- wrote: Wow, I'm amazed that for once, there is something extremely controversial and ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with me for a change!YOU? Being amazed by YOURSELF??? Not a chance! ;-) |
| YourValentine 20.11.2005 08:21 |
eddieshore was Evan Porada, he is banned from QZ and his account was deleted. |
| Smitty 20.11.2005 08:26 |
YourValentine wrote: eddieshore was Evan Porada, he is banned from QZ and his account was deleted.Where have I heard that name before????? Hmmmmmmm... :P |
| Smitty 20.11.2005 10:25 |
HOLD ON!!!! Has anyone here been to the Golders Green 1973 concert or does anyone know anyone who went there to hear Queen play? |
| riku_queencdr 21.11.2005 02:26 |
After listening to both recordings (GG & Ewell) closely, my opinon is that those are indeed identical. They are also both soundboard recordings. If you listen to the audience cheering just before Big Spender starts, it fades out instantly on the first drumbeat of the intro. If it was an audience recording, there would most likely be someone screaming or cheering during the rest of the intro as well. |
| Mr. Scully 21.11.2005 03:54 |
Yes, I haven't noticed it at first either (although the "echo vocals" were suspiciously similar to Golders Green) but now it's obvious it IS Golders Green. I'm sure it wasn't Barry's intention (as John says, he is probably a nice shy guy) but for God's sake, he has earned some 400 pounds for selling a bad-quality fake MP3 on ebay! |
| inu-liger 21.11.2005 10:57 |
Am *I* glad that I didn't buy it on eBay when I had the chance... |
| PieterMC 21.11.2005 11:01 |
MIKEBOSSY wrote: ...besides you still got his autograph, and that alone is worth probably more than what any of the fake recordings sold for.I don't know what people paid for the recording but I higly doubt his autograph is worth much, if anything. |
| YourValentine 21.11.2005 14:21 |
I have exchanged a couple of emails with Barry Mitchell and with John Stuart last night and today. There is not doubt in my mind that Barry Mitchell is an honest person who had no idea that the recording he sold on ebay was not Ewell 1971. He offered me a refund (although he is still convinced his recording is Ewell) but I declined - it was a mix up from the beginning and I am sure it was a mistake and no bad intention when the recordings were mixed up - some 10 years ago! Maybe the real Ewell will pop up some day, maybe it won't. After so many recordings appeared in the last two years, it's nice to have something to wish for. As far as I am concerned the case is closed. |
| Erin 21.11.2005 15:05 |
maurice_richard wrote: hes a saint because we have absolutely no right to ask for our money back because it was a MISTAKE!Even if it was a mistake, people should get a refund if they didn't get what they paid for. |
| Mr. Scully 22.11.2005 05:09 |
Erin wrote:I absolutely agree! It doesn't make any difference at all if it was an intention or a mistake (like in Barry's case). People paid a lot of money for a fake MP3, all of them should get their money back.maurice_richard wrote: hes a saint because we have absolutely no right to ask for our money back because it was a MISTAKE!Even if it was a mistake, people should get a refund if they didn't get what they paid for. |
| YourValentine 22.11.2005 06:48 |
For me it makes all the difference. If someone sells me a fake recording on purpose I can reclaim my money. If someone sells me something he has good reason to take for genuine, he fulfilled his part of the deal. When I buy an inofficial product on ebay, there is always a risk. I am an adult and I know the risk. My communication with Barry was very nice and friendly. He could have ignored my email, what could I have done? Complain to ebay about a bootleg? Certainly not. It's between him and myself and that's it. Other people who bought a copy have the same possibilty to contact him. No need to start some kind of witch hunt here or anywhere else, he certainly does not deserve that. |
| scallyuk 22.11.2005 06:53 |
YourValentine wrote: For me it makes all the difference. If someone sells me a fake recording on purpose I can reclaim my money. If someone sells me something he has good reason to take for genuine, he fulfilled his part of the deal. When I buy an inofficial product on ebay, there is always a risk. I am an adult and I know the risk.Well said Barb. The Bootleg maket is always ull of risk and this just shows that it's not always the newbies who get caught. As with all bootleg purchases it's best to remembe that if it sounds too good to be true it usually is. N |
