| Author |
|
jrjr
MusicFan
Joined: 28 December 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 22 August 2007 at 10:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
big thumbs up to eriejwg for the 1969 45 version! to say this version is mixed differently is an understatement! it almost sounds like an alternate vocal take, but i don't think it is, just mixed way up and drowned in reverb... did someone mention extra percussion???
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eriejwg
MusicFan
Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: 22 August 2007 at 7:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
It is a wonderful track. Many thanks to Bill Cahill for pointing out the differences between the 1969 and 1971 versions. :)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
The Hits Man
MusicFan
Joined: 04 February 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: 23 August 2007 at 7:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey! Nice needle drops!
I do not hear any added instrumentation or added reverb at all. It's just that the vocals, drums, piano, and horns were mixed up way loud to sound good on the radio.
__________________
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BillCahill
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 4:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I thought there was added reverb when I first heard it but after careful listening it's just the reverb on the vocal that's already there. It sounds louder due to the hotter vocal mix, and the extra compression brings it out more.
Sounds like extra shakers added in the instrumental section at 2:47.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eriejwg
MusicFan
Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 6:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bill:
After you pointed out the added shakers a couple weeks back, and going back and listening to the 1971 GH v2 edit, I hear them in 1969's version, not 1971's.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jrjr
MusicFan
Joined: 28 December 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 7:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
gave a listen to lp version from "group portrait" vs. 45 version and did not notice any extra shakers, they are just mixed up higher in the 45 version (at least to my ears)... also, check out the reverb on the penultimate line of the song "yes it does now baby" sounds like it was recorded in a cave, but just that one line... also sustain on last note trimmed about 20"
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
sriv94
MusicFan
Joined: 16 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1456
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 8:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
How comparable were the edits in the 1969 DJ 45 and the 1971 commercial 45 (there's about a 18 second difference in times)?
__________________
Doug
---------------
All of the good signatures have been taken.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
BillCahill
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 12:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Not comparable on the edits. You probably know where they made the first edit on the introduction for the 1971 version, THAT'S the starting point of the 1969 DJ version. They started it right in the middle of the guitar wailing and it sounds pretty obvious.
Both edits chop out the second verse.
For the 1969 edit they made the edit AFTER the chorus section "I'd like to know... "
In 1971 they edited it right as the chorus starts. So the 1969 version sings something like "yeah yeah yeah" at the end of the first chorus, 1971 has "yes it does now baby" as it's actually chorus 2.
As far as the shakers or tambourine or whatever it is, yes there are some on the album version and 1971 single version, it just sounds like there is MORE on the 1969 single, and it's not just a mix difference, the shakers are faster and more vigorous.
Edited by BillCahill on 25 August 2007 at 5:52am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jrjr
MusicFan
Joined: 28 December 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 12:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
ok, bill, thanks for the detailed description! i will check it out... one thing for sure, though, there is definitely more reverb on the '69 single version (see previous post)... also, i was checking out a thread on a song lyric chat room and one guy claims the the title of "questions 67 & 68" refers to the "afterglow" the author had after free love encounters in 1967 and 1968... hmmm, i always thought it was about the ever-so-slightly disguised observations of the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
The Hits Man
MusicFan
Joined: 04 February 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: 24 August 2007 at 4:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
But, if you turn up the vocal track with reverb already added, of course you will hear more of it, and it will stand out more in the mix.
It seems to me that the original mono single version is the longest released version, and even the LP version was cut from it. No wonder the single failed in 1969. Too long. I don't know how many stations played the long version as opposed to the LP or DJ edit, but it was a time when radio was trying to break out of the three-minute single mode.
__________________
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bill Cahill
MusicFan
Joined: 27 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 595
|
| Posted: 17 April 2009 at 7:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yet another incarnation. I just found a 1969 stock copy. It runs 4:45. But the label states 3:07.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Question 67 & 69 (1969 version)
