Mr Demos audio analysis

It's more than the "Matter of Opinion" at the end of the latest video that gives their game away.

At the end of the first chorus, I hear "Johnny" mess up getting back to the verse riff. In each chorus to verse, the same mistake is made.

Looking at the spectral selection we see below two chorus' images. The top is the first one, bottom is another later on. The left arrow indicates where the final riff of the chorus ends and the right set of arrows show where "Johnny" makes the mistake.

full

As you can see, even amidst added distortion and reverb (trails off at end of recording), we can see sections of guitar have been cut and pasted to form the structure of the song.

We also see a very obvious cut (just after 3:06) where the verse riff becomes a version that rings out at the end as "Johnny" descends into playing "reel around the fountain" and a taster of "matter of opinion".

full


As a matter of fact, one copy of that being practised exists,a because it was only done once has not been released as of yet.
If a person is willing to waste all of this time creating this poor quality impression, then I'm not surprised that they also researched that they played at Fagin's and that the guitar part for "matter of opinion" is just the same as satisfaction.

If they'd learned how to play the song in full they would have hoodwinked me, but the excessive filters and effects got me curious as Johnny never had those pedals.


Related items:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cornflakes

"A bit iffy" ★★☆☆☆ - AV Club
And I'm sorry if Audacity confuses you, but most of us can easily see breaks and repeats -- especially when Tom helpfully elucidates.

You can't see anything that's not there. Just by looking at a spectrogram, if two repeats of the same think look identical in every detail, even when you zoom right in to the level of individual samples, then that means you've identified a duplicate. Two different recordings made using the same setup and involving the same guitar riff will, of course, look similar, but if they are not totally identical, you haven't shown anything. Strictly speaking, that also doesn't prove that there is not some element of duplication somewhere in the mix, but it's not going to be possible to prove or disprove that just by looking at a spectrogram.

And there are no breaks to be seen in the audio. The vertical patterning you can see is just a feature of what spectrograms look like. Open a random piece of music in Audacity and switch to spectrogram, and you can see this for yourself. In this particular track, they are particularly apparent towards the end because the Pretty Girls riff is more dynamic than the one for What Difference and there is no vocal to mask the changes.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
Having looked through the waveform at 1000th of a second level between 3:6.0000 to 3:7.5000, I haven't seen any obvious joins.
Can anyone point to an exact point where a suspect paste occurs (using prior time format)?

Untitled.png


That's as much of my time it's getting today.
Great cure for insomnia ;)
FWD.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1:47.0-1:47.5
2:34.0-2:34.5

To my ear, the guitar part sounds identical.

No offence taken, I am no audio engineer. Healthy skepticism =/= paranoia

Cheers
Tom
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
1:47.0-1:47.5
2:34.0-2:34.5

To my ear, the guitar part sounds identical.

No offence taken, I am no audio engineer. Healthy skepticism =/= paranoia

Cheers
Tom
Thank you.
I mentioned 3:06 as it is cited to have an 'obvious cut', hence staring at the magnified waveform looking for anything to indicate similar (as the spectral feature of audacity does 'clump' colours together and patterns possibly can be seen where there may be none upon zooming in).
Not sure where paranoia comes in to it though!?
Part of healthy scepticism is exactly this type of analysis and questioning.
Regards,
FWD.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just meant that it's better to mistrust, then trust in the end, than to trust and discover you definitely shouldn't have.
Some commenters appear to have blind faith, and for that I'm jealous.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
f***s sake, look at all the techno geeks doing spectral analysis, waveform analysis...measuring internal & outer dimensions with their slide rules, micrometers, doing logarithms, geometry, trigonometry, measuring SOHCAHTOA, doing BODMAS, testing for tape oxidisation levels, nuclear levels, & material defect rates, etcetera, etcetera...all for a shitty tape that was going for £10 at a car boot sale. :rolleyes:

Get some perspective & just buy the f***er, fake or not & throw it away.

Please.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Having looked through the waveform at 1000th of a second level between 3:6.0000 to 3:7.5000, I haven't seen any obvious joins.
Can anyone point to an exact point where a suspect paste occurs (using prior time format)?

View attachment 54129

That's as much of my time it's getting today.
Great cure for insomnia ;)
FWD.
So you're saying you don't see the join?
 
they never played at fagins or rafters as it would of being called at the time and how do you know its a riff to a matter of opinion as there is only one pratice tape in existence and that belongs to a certain mr joyce so that is pure speculation so i give a thumbs down to this anaylsis
 

Ketamine Sun

A Most Misunderstood Member
Just meant that it's better to mistrust, then trust in the end, than to trust and discover you definitely shouldn't have.
Some commenters appear to have blind faith, and for that I'm jealous.

Or.. it’s better to trust, then to mistrust
in the end, than to mistrust and discover you definitely should have.

:D


It’s difficult to judge by analyzing with audio spectrums/Audacity or even just by ear.

Can’t tell if it’s just poor quality recording or effects have been added to mask the cuts and editing or just mask
that it’s not Marr playing. The playing does sound sloppy at points. If fake, I thought it a clever move on their part
to change some lyrics, to make it seem more authentic.


Someone should send a link to Marr,
would be best I think.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I really don't understand. LoonyUnclePeter said that it was definitely The Smiths and LoonyUnclePeter is never wrong about anything, ever. Can someone please explain to me how this is possible.

Now hold on...you don't think that these tapes were made by LoonyUnclePeter, do you? He has had rather a lot of time on his hands these past few months and his Morrissey obsession has reached levels way beyond unhealthy. Perhaps this is what he was doing in his basement when he was supposed to be inventing a new colour?
 
V

vegan cro spirit 888

Guest
f***s sake, look at all the techno geeks doing spectral analysis, waveform analysis...measuring internal & outer dimensions with their slide rules, micrometers, doing logarithms, geometry, trigonometry, measuring SOHCAHTOA, doing BODMAS, testing for tape oxidisation levels, nuclear levels, & material defect rates, etcetera, etcetera...all for a shitty tape that was going for £10 at a car boot sale. :rolleyes:

Get some perspective & just buy the f***er, fake or not & throw it away.

Please.


Yes FFS give it a break it was verifed as FAKE once Skinny and co authenticated it.:rage:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Have you heard Handsome Devil, posted today?
Previous posts have sounded credibly like early live versions but I cannot believe this is the work of the Smiths.
Unsubscribed as from today.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
Cradle?

The aforementioned Handsome Devil:

If these are fake, I can't see the payoff. Minimal YT money (well, zero), no media interest - so 'fool fans' is the last obvious motive and that could be achieved with one demo.
All rather bizarre - who knows!?
Regards,
FWD.
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
Cradle?

The aforementioned Handsome Devil:

If these are fake, I can't see the payoff. Minimal YT money (well, zero), no media interest - so 'fool fans' is the last obvious motive and that could be achieved with one demo.
All rather bizarre - who knows!?
Regards,
FWD.
It's called trolling. The payoff is that people are discussing it. You can't argue with a sick mind.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
It's called trolling. The payoff is that people are discussing it. You can't argue with a sick mind.
The lengths and efforts being gone to in making these tracks (if fake) seems a little at odds with the amount of 'discussion' it is generating on this site when added to a couple of YT comments.
You'd have to be rather 'special' to expend that much energy in to a troll music track and only reap a handful of people scratching their heads here.
Not exactly an earth shattering, chaos-ridden reward is it?
'Trolling lite' perhaps?
Regards,
FWD.
 
Top Bottom