| Author |
|
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 16 July 2011 at 7:01am | IP Logged
|
|
|
my commercial 45 for the thunderclap newman song "something in the air" issued as track 2656 states the run time as 3:53 and does indeed run that length...i have a cdr copy of the song from somewhere and it sounds identical.....the db states there is an lp/45 difference, but i cannot hear any......if anyone is familiar with the differences i'd love a tutorial....thx edtop40
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 16 July 2011 at 6:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Happy to help, Ed, as it is quite possibly my favorite song of all time. In
late '68. The Who's Pete Townshend put these three guys together and
signed them to his "Track" label: His former personal chauffeur,
songwriter/vocalist/drummer/rhythm guitarist John "Speedy" Keen (whose
last name was mis-spelled as "Keene" on the hit 45), pianist Andy
"Thunderclap" Newman, and the then-15-year-old lead guitar prodigy,
Jimmy McCulloch (later of "Wings"; died at 26, in '79). Townsend played
bass on all recordings (as "Bijou Drains"). Other musicians were brought
in to supplement the three of them during tours/TV appearances. Keen
was a very reluctant vocalist, and only finally agreed to sing lead on
"Something In The Air" after much convincing/prodding by Townshend.
The LP and 45 versions you ask about (both in stereo, and both included
on their "Hollywood Dream" CD) are quite similar. But to my ears, Ed,
100% of the mix differences occur during Newman's lengthy piano
instrumental segment, about two-thirds into the record. I believe the 45
version has less strings present during this segment, which emphasized
the piano play itself much more. FYI, the video is a period piece classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8zmkzshUvE
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 16 July 2011 at 8:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jim, as always thanks for the direction.....i will take a re-listen
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
TomDiehl1
MusicFan
Joined: 13 January 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 719
|
| Posted: 17 July 2011 at 12:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The stereo 45 mix is an entirely different mix than the LP mix, at least in terms of left-center-right stereo placement.
There is also a mono promo 45 mix, I don't have my copy handy at the moment, though. I also believe there may have been a mono/stereo promo for a reissue of the song but I don't have that one either.
Edited by TomDiehl1 on 17 July 2011 at 12:44pm
__________________
Live in stereo.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
davidclark
MusicFan
Joined: 17 November 2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1103
|
| Posted: 17 July 2011 at 3:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
is the mono version from Rhino "The British Invasion: The History Of British
Rock Vol. 9" one of the promo mixes, or perhaps there was a stereo and
mono US 45 or a UK mono 45?
__________________
dc1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 17 July 2011 at 8:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't know what to do here. In some previous instances when I've felt
compelled to respond to a post from Tom Diehl, I've soon received a less-
than-cheerful, follow-up PM from him about it. I really hope it doesn't
happen this time, Tom. I'm neither mad at you, nor meaning to be
critical/disrespectful to you in any way. I always try to be respectful to
everyone here, and you, Tom have made many solid contributions to Pat's
board over the years. Tom, you are right when you say that the left-
center-right stereo placements are WAY different between the stereo LP
and 45 versions - I'd listened to both mixes from my CD before I even
responded to Ed's initial query. But that being said (and without
headphones), to most folks (like Ed, myself, and many other detail-
oriented listeners over the years to my former, 1977-2007 60s/70s
oldies show, none of whom EVER knew there were both stereo 45 & LP
mixes), my overall experience has been that Ed's question here is both
quite legitimate and not isolated. I know one thing I've always personally
tried to do on here is to wait until I have located/listened to my original
vinyl before responding to a post. Hey, we all mis-file vinyl sometimes,
but I know that the detail-aholics on here love specifics, and weren't
crazy about my initial, "it's around here somewhere" answers. How was
that vague answer of mine really helping anybody, I thought? So I learned
my lesson, and I now put the "find the vinyl first" time/effort in,
before I respond to a post. For the record, I stand by my earlier
comments, Ed, regarding the instrumental differences between the two
mixes. FYI, here are the song's full 1969 commercial/promo 45
particulars:
-Thunderclap Newman--"Something In The Air" (stock 45 is stereo) (Track
2656) (listed 3:53; actual 3:55) (deadwax "ST-A-17283 - 1")
-Thunderclap Newman--"Something In The Air" (promo 45 is mono, with
the same flip as the stock 45, "Wilhemina") (Track 2656) (listed & actual
3:53) (deadwax "A-17283 - 1")
Tom, I also have/knew that the 1969 promo 45 was is mono. But Ed's a
99% "commercial release" guy, so I tried to slant my reply to his particular
interest: the stereo stock 45. Finally, I do also own the late 1970 promo
45 (Track 2769; re-released due to its inclusion in the film "The
Strawberry Statement"), but it didn't seem relevant to use in my reply to Ed
because the song only "Bubbled Under" during that release. And,
as Ringo always says, "Peace and love to everyone!" :)
(P.S. to David Clark: Yes, David, the mono "History Of British Rock - Vol.
9" version does sound like the mono promo 45 to me. But it runs just
(3:50), and to me does sound just a tad faster than my promo 45 does.)
(P.S. to Pat: Pat, "Something In The Air" did also get some renewed, 9 &
10/1973 airplay in Buffalo, during still another Track/MCA 45 release of it
(b/w "Hollywood #1"), so your db is correct to mention it in that regard.
But its 1970 "Bubbling..." airplay was more extensive, and included the St.
Louis and San Diego markets, among others.)
Edited by jimct on 17 July 2011 at 8:57pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Yah Shure
MusicFan
Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: 17 July 2011 at 9:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
| "Something In The Air" did also get some renewed, 9 & 10/1973 airplay in Buffalo, during still another Track/MCA 45 release of it (b/w "Hollywood #1") |
|
|
I have both promo and stock copies of the August, 1973 reissue on Track/MCA 60132. For the sake of completeness, listed times are (2:45) and (3:55) for the short/long, stereo/stereo DJ 45 and (3:55) for the stereo stock 45.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
TomDiehl1
MusicFan
Joined: 13 January 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 719
|
| Posted: 17 July 2011 at 9:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I dont think your post was necessary Jim. Any time I try to contribute anything here (however miniscule it might be) I get crapped on, or no one comments on my findings at all. A recent request I had on here for a copy of a song off an LP source that had been discussed on here also went largely ignored.
Jim, I was not wrong in stating that (for me) the biggest difference between the lp and 45 versions is the stereo placement.
I think im going to just have to avoid this site for a while. Bye for now.
Edited by TomDiehl1 on 17 July 2011 at 9:40pm
__________________
Live in stereo.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 17 July 2011 at 11:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Does anyone have any constructive criticism for me, as to how not to trigger
this repeat anger from Tom? Where did I say he was wrong? He was correct.
On my father's grave, I've tried everything I know to treat Tom exactly the
way I'd treat a friend, and would want to be treated myself. This has basically
been what I get whenever he PMs me after I reply. All I did in my previous
post was to poke fun at my own numerous Board shortcomings, which I've
tried to learn from. Jeez....
Edited by jimct on 17 July 2011 at 11:09pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Yah Shure
MusicFan
Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: 18 July 2011 at 7:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As per Pat's rules for this board:
Rule #1 Let's be civil and not criticize other members or their opinions.
Jim, you may not have realized it, but I'm sure that Tom - as did I - interpreted your singling him out upthread as personal criticism, which he felt was not necessary. The line was crossed when the matter was taken public, as opposed to keeping such differences limited to personal messages, which is where they should remain.
It's important for all members to remember that the differences in the way each of us perceives sound are just as important as the anomalies we discover between certain vinyl pressings or the differences in some CD production runs. Comparing those differences in perception should be part of the fun. Just remember to keep the discussion objective, as per Pat's Rule #2.
Tom, I wouldn't necessarily equate a lack of comments or a non-response for a vinyl LP dub with being ignored. I've contributed timing info or dubs whenever possible, but will do so only when I actually have the item in question.
We all make mistakes here, and I've made my share. As a result, I've vowed to be as thorough as possible in analyzing a particular subject, and even then, I may not always hear things correctly (witness the "Timothy (Revised Lyric)" faux pas.) We can only report what each of us hears and go from there.
Edited by Yah Shure on 18 July 2011 at 7:47am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 18 July 2011 at 3:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Appreciate your perspective, John. I thank you for it. I just didn't know
how to reply to this thread without 100% ruffling the feathers of someone
I'd angered before, and knew beforehand was coming again. To be
honest, I still don't. My "preamble" was my best effort to, in fact, be civil.
Is a partially different perspective "criticism?" I don't ever take it that way
myself. My past experiences with him had shown that even when I didn't
mention him by name in threads he'd been a part of, mega-anger still
followed, via PM. Thought I'd tried that way already. I learned in college
that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is
insanity. So I took a different approach this time, hoping for better results
- to no avail. But, on second thought, I suppose me getting angry PM after
angry PM from one guy, going forward, is still far better than having it all
air here. So that's how I will proceed, going forward. My apologies to all,
including Tom. Over and out.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
TomDiehl1
MusicFan
Joined: 13 January 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 719
|
| Posted: 18 July 2011 at 5:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jim I still do not understand why you attacked me on here. All I tried to do was add to the discussion. I will no longer add anything to any discussion from now on if thats what you want. I have no idea why you had to even bring me up, and I think this whole discussion needs to be deleted and started over from scratch.
__________________
Live in stereo.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Santi Paradoa
MusicFan
Joined: 17 February 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1120
|
| Posted: 23 May 2014 at 7:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
Happy to help, Ed, as it is quite possibly my
favorite song of all time. |
|
|
I'll second that Jim
(still love it after all these years).
__________________
Santi Paradoa
Miami, Florida
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 25 November 2014 at 7:50am | IP Logged
|
|
|
my commercial 45 issued as track 2656 contains the mono
version on one side and the stereo version on the
other.....the 1969 mono/stereo 45 thread says the 45 was
originally issued in stereo.....which was the A-
side?....the mono or stereo version?..................the
run out groove
info on the mono side is 'A-17283-1' and on the stereo side
it's 'ST-A-17283'...
Edited by edtop40 on 25 November 2014 at 7:54am
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Yah Shure
MusicFan
Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: 25 November 2014 at 10:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ed, if your Track 2656 45 has white labels, it's a promo copy. Keep in mind that the Atlantic family of labels circa 1969 - including Track - did not typically bear any promotional or "not for sale" designations on the labels of their white-label promo 45s. This link shows the Track 2656 white-label promo 45:
http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=3604279
The commercial Track 2656 45 has black labels with silver print (and "Wilhemina" on the B-side.)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 25 November 2014 at 11:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yah Shure wrote:
This link shows the Track 2656 white-label promo 45:
http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=3604279 |
|
|
Actually, it shows the white-label promo of Track 2769 (not 2656) - which is the same version that TomDiehl1 described in his post in the "List of mono and Stereo 45s - 1969" thread:
TomDiehl1 wrote:
| The first time I've encountered a 45 with the song on both sides, one being mono and one being stereo, was on the 1970 reissue (promotional 45 only), Track 2769. |
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 26 November 2014 at 6:05am | IP Logged
|
|
|
thanks for the help guys.....after looking at the label
again more carefully, it is clearly track 2769 and NOT
2656....sorry for the confusion....now to ebay to buy the
correct commercial 45!!!...........thx all!!
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Yah Shure
MusicFan
Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: 26 November 2014 at 10:52am | IP Logged
|
|
|
80smusicfreak wrote:
| Actually, it shows the white-label promo of Track 2769 (not 2656) |
|
|
D'oh! So it is! Thanks for the correction.
At least Ed is now on the right Track.
[insert assorted groans here]
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 26 November 2014 at 4:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yah Shure wrote:
| At least Ed is now on the right Track. |
|
|
Ha - good choice of words. :-) Still can't believe Ed faked us all out on this one - and here I was starting to think he actually had a very rare/valuable collectible, lol... :-p
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Indy500
MusicFan
Joined: 29 January 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: 19 August 2019 at 5:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Making a Woodstock themed CD. Anybody know the edit points for the 2:45 promo? I've played around with cutting out the piano section but would love to know the exact points.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: thunderclap newman something in the air
