Hal Lindes' post about Private dancer

[quizzaciously]

In my memory the double album in the Oldfield book was Making Movies, not LOG.
Twisting is not a LOG session song as that was already featured in the 1980 's BBC Arena doc.

We have several examples of song written many years ago before being published by mark so unless for the ones we have a good testimonial about them, we can generally not say if it is a real new one or not.
I guess on that subject Mark is more or less always looking back on what is in stock.

Yes, also Secondary Waltz dates way back, Rüdiger was unfinished until 1996, who knows what they played.
Anyway, my reasoning behind my words is because I think if that's unreleased, that's probably for a reason.

[the visitor]

I think I'll put my trust in a primary source of information from Hal who was actually in the band rather than any of us that there are a dozen or so songs that didn't make it.

Amuses me how anyone could think they know better

[quizzaciously]

I think I'll put my trust in a primary source of information from Hal who was actually in the band rather than any of us that there are a dozen or so songs that didn't make it.

Amuses me how anyone could think they know better

Know better what? I don't even know what you're talking about From what I understand the premise is Hal posted that they've recorded "at least another dozen or so stellar tunes". We just try to guess them. What's "the primary source" and of which exact information?

[the visitor]

The bit about recordings of rehearsals is interesting.  This is what Wikipedia says about a portastudio:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portastudio

If they used a later version then they could record four tracks at one which could be mixed later.

[the visitor]

I think I'll put my trust in a primary source of information from Hal who was actually in the band rather than any of us that there are a dozen or so songs that didn't make it.

Amuses me how anyone could think they know better

Know better what? I don't even know what you're talking about From what I understand the premise is Hal posted that they've recorded "at least another dozen or so stellar tunes". We just try to guess them. What's "the primary source" and of which exact information?

This bit:

"I think Hal may be overwhelmed with emotions and you always exaggerate the past, especially good things, so he could remember it as dozen of tunes".

[quizzaciously]

I think I'll put my trust in a primary source of information from Hal who was actually in the band rather than any of us that there are a dozen or so songs that didn't make it.

Amuses me how anyone could think they know better

Know better what? I don't even know what you're talking about From what I understand the premise is Hal posted that they've recorded "at least another dozen or so stellar tunes". We just try to guess them. What's "the primary source" and of which exact information?

This bit:

"I think Hal may be overwhelmed with emotions and you always exaggerate the past, especially good things, so he could remember it as dozen of tunes".

Anyway, he didn't say the exact number of tunes, so the whole discussion is surreal considering it was 38 years ago AND the number of songs is undefined even by "a primary source". I'm not a fan when people accuse me of "knowing better", because instead of talking about the topic you start to talk about me and ruin the discussion with personal insults. Again, it was 38 years ago. I'm not Hal, but without deep research I think it's strange to expect a complete list of recorded songs in a random Facebook post, that's my point.

Why not just ask Hal to elaborate on this topic since he's open for questions anyway? This is a healthy way to continue the discussion.

[JF]

I asked Hal, but he didn't reply until now

I agree with Pavel that even "primary sources" can make mistakes or can be not that much accurate

I quoted this example a number of times : in an interview, Mark claimed that the trawlerman's song was played on the 54 strat. But Chuck Ainlay provided infos on MK news saying this is the 58 LP, confirmed by Guy.
And when you listen to the song, it's obvious that its sounds like the LP, not the strat
So who is the best "primary source" in this case ?

My bet is that Mark tried different guitars for the song in different takes, so maybe one featuring the 54 strat, and that would explain why he chose to play the song live with the strat (on tour and on Boothbay)

Another example is Neil Dorfsman syaing that MFN was played on a LP junior on the studio version. No pic during the sessions shows such a guitar, an no biog mentions Mark ahving such a guitar. So again, it must be a mistake

anyway, it shows that even the most concerned person can be wrong sometimes. I don't blame them, it's impossible to remember such details in a musical carreer when you have done tones of recordings and tours.

So it's normal that they "may be overwhelmed with emotions and exaggerate the past"   I agree with that

[2manyguitars]

I asked Hal, but he didn't reply until now

I agree with Pavel that even "primary sources" can make mistakes or can be not that much accurate

I quoted this example a number of times : in an interview, Mark claimed that the trawlerman's song was played on the 54 strat. But Chuck Ainlay provided infos on MK news saying this is the 58 LP, confirmed by Guy.
And when you listen to the song, it's obvious that its sounds like the LP, not the strat
So who is the best "primary source" in this case ?

My bet is that Mark tried different guitars for the song in different takes, so maybe one featuring the 54 strat, and that would explain why he chose to play the song live with the strat (on tour and on Boothbay)

Another example is Neil Dorfsman syaing that MFN was played on a LP junior on the studio version. No pic during the sessions shows such a guitar, an no biog mentions Mark ahving such a guitar. So again, it must be a mistake

anyway, it shows that even the most concerned person can be wrong sometimes. I don't blame them, it's impossible to remember such details in a musical carreer when you have done tones of recordings and tours.

So it's normal that they "may be overwhelmed with emotions and exaggerate the past"   I agree with that

It's one thing getting the fine details of specific instruments on specific tracks mixed up or incorrect. It's something completely different recalling songs you recorded/player on. I'd be inclined to trust what Hal says.

If you asked him what instruments he played or what his rig settings were for specific songs that becomes less reliable.

It's comparable to asking someone what exams they sat 30 years ago and then asking what the specific questions were on each paper!

Either way we probably will never know, well at least until someone else breaks ranks and writes, kiss and tell all, their definitive DS point of view in print......

[Eddie Fox]

Well, I don’t understand why a fan wouldn’t want more songs from one of the most if not the most creative period of Mark’s career. Seriously, you always have the option not to hear what you don’t want to don’t you. When it comes to MK I’m always on the the more the better team.

[2manyguitars]

Well, I don’t understand why a fan wouldn’t want more songs from one of the most if not the most creative period of Mark’s career. Seriously, you always have the option not to hear what you don’t want to don’t you. When it comes to MK I’m always on the the more the better team.

Of course Eddie.

Sometimes it gets like religious canon amongst fans on here, I think anyone who remotely entertains the possibility of additional material from the LOG sessions can now well and truly regard themselves as a heritc. 😉

[hunter]

By the way, when did Mark write Rüdiger? Didn't he start it in the early 80s? IF that's the case, and IF the 96 version has any traces of the music when Mark first started working on it, to me it sounds like it could have been "conceived" during the LOG era. Would be awesome to hear it played on a Spanish guitar and with marimbas.

[dmg]

By the way, when did Mark write Rüdiger? Didn't he start it in the early 80s? IF that's the case, and IF the 96 version has any traces of the music when Mark first started working on it, to me it sounds like it could have been "conceived" during the LOG era. Would be awesome to hear it played on a Spanish guitar and with marimbas.

I recall that although he did indeed write it in the early 1980s the music didn't come along until he started playing with The Dullards.

[quizzaciously]

By the way, when did Mark write Rüdiger? Didn't he start it in the early 80s? IF that's the case, and IF the 96 version has any traces of the music when Mark first started working on it, to me it sounds like it could have been "conceived" during the LOG era. Would be awesome to hear it played on a Spanish guitar and with marimbas.

I recall that although he did indeed write it in the early 1980s the music didn't come along until he started playing with The Dullards.

I also recall he said he never changed a single word in it till the official release, and yes, that is was written in 1980, at least the lyrics. Also the lyrics for "One More Matinee" was written in 1967-ish according to Mark.

[qjamesfloyd]

During A Night In London he states he started writing the song around the time John Lennon was murdered, and then says he stared writing it about 15 years ago, John was murdered 8th December 1980 and A Night in London was recorded 15th April 1996 so that gives the window of when Rudiger was written.

[Robson]

Similarly sketch of Planet Of New Orleans was created much earlier.