Forums > Sharing The Music - Announce > Response to Ewell 71

forum rss feed
Author

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 05:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I am quite shocked and disappointed by this thread.

http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=661338

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.



"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 05:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 500 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 05:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 05:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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!


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 05:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
stark user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 376 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 06:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 www.har-bal.com. Use it - see what happens.

Cheers,

stark

Penetration_Guru user not visiting Queenzone.com
Penetration_Guru
Deity: 11013 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 06:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18636 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 08:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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!


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
tilomagnet user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 290 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

tilomagnet wrote:

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.


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.

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.




"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
tilomagnet user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 290 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


I do not want any google ads here.

A Word In Your Ear user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1786 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.







Joyful the sound
Smitty user not visiting Queenzone.com
Cool, we have display messages
Smitty
Deity: 6196 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

@ 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.


I do not want any google ads here.

Lemmy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 44 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 09:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


take it to 11
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 10:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Cool, we have display messages
Smitty
Deity: 6196 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 10:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Serry... wrote:

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")


We might as well ignore this total n00b eddieshore. He's a total idiot. He's probably not even worth replying to.

Rick user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4796 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 05, 11:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."