| Author |
|
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 16 December 2007 at 2:05am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My commercial 45 has a listed time of (3:25), but an actual time of (3:22). Since the four current database CDs for this song run between (3:33) and (3:36), it appears either an "LP length" or "LP Version" designation will need to be added.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 1:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As far as Top 40 hits from the '70s, '80s, and '90s go, Jim, it looks like you've uncovered what is probably one of the last remaining commercial 45 and LP version/length distinctions not yet accounted for in the database. Bravo!
Edited by Todd Ireland on 20 December 2007 at 1:10am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bell
MusicFan
Joined: 16 December 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 1:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Todd Ireland wrote:
| As far as Top 40 hits from the '70s, '80s, and '90s go, Jim, it looks like you've uncovered what is probably one of the last remaining commercial 45 and LP version/length distinctions not yet accounted for in the database. Bravo! |
|
|
Bravo indeed! A 8 second or more length difference is certainly valuable to know. It's the small variations (like 3 seconds) that are not valuable for me to know. I'm curious if everyone agrees.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 1:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, I generally don't get too picky about a two or three second difference in fade length, depending on how long the fade is. If it's a long, drawn out fade, for example, a few seconds shaved off the ending isn't going to spoil my listening experience; however, if someone has taken the time to find a discrepancy, no matter how small it is, I think it should be posted.
Edited by aaronk on 20 December 2007 at 12:36pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 7:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
For me personally, I agree with Aaron and Bell on this one, in that the 3 second differences aren't important to me, but that when you get to differences of 8 seconds or more, that is valuable to me. However, I feel that if even one person out there is finding it useful info to know about the 3 second differences, then who am I to suggest it not be reported? In other words, having the info listed (for such a person) trumps NOT having the info listed (for me, Aaron, Bell and other folks) and that Jim and others should report the differences if at least one person finds the info helpful.
I should also point out that it was previously agreed in this chatboard, when Jim and Pat and others were deciding where to draw the line for reporting, that "3 seconds or more" was the amount agreed on.
If people feel that the number should be increased to a higher number (8 seconds, 5 seconds), then maybe it should be discussed here.
For all the "pro" reasons I cited above, I can only think of one "con" reason, which might not have been considered when the subject (and decision) came about a year or more ago. And that is -- when we all check in on the site to see what's been discussed in the past day, there may be a whole new page of topics added just since the day before, and at times it seems like 90% - 95% of these could be about the short time discrepancies, making it harder to find the few new posts that deal with subjects other than this (for instance, someone might click on the 25 most recent posts, only to ultimately find that 3 posts didn't have to do with short time discrepancies), and that can take considerable time when someone really just wants to read the 3 posts.)
Again, that's the only con that I can think of. How does everyone else here feel about this?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 10:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Edisonlite wrote:
| I can only think of one "con" reason, which might not have been considered when the subject (and decision) came about a year or more ago. And that is -- when we all check in on the site to see what's been discussed in the past day, there may be a whole new page of topics added just since the day before, and at times it seems like 90% - 95% of these could be about the short time discrepancies, making it harder to find the few new posts that deal with subjects other than this |
|
|
I don't really see that as a con, since you can easily check the date/time of the last post for each thread. And it doesn't take very much time to quickly scan through the new posts, in my opinion. Besides, pretty soon, there won't be too many time discrepancies left to report on! Keep 'em comin,' Jim, Ed, and everyone else who has been posting.
Edited by aaronk on 20 December 2007 at 12:47pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 11:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've always felt that one of the great things about this Message Board is that people can read/post about questions, and add info about various subjects/eras. Some, like Doug (sriv94) love the 70's. 80smusicfreak loves his 80's. Others, like Brian W., have original mono versions as their area of specialty. EdisonLite has made many a NON-Top-40 45 length version dub request of me, that I've sent his way. Not all of us share their specific passions, but I've always found it all to be very informative. When I first joined, I saw EdTop40 tirelessly reporting on small differences on listed/actual 45 times. At first, I didn't get it. And then Todd Ireland, often asking about what some may consider "small and insignificant CD time ranges" for a song in the database, with him wanting to know what is the 45's actual time, so he knows which of the CDs to "go with"? I soon discovered that often, these small differences were also the "tip" of a "version iceberg", where mix/length differences are ultimately determined to also exist. If I sent these small listed/actual timing differences directly to Pat, folks like Ed and Todd, two "Hall Of Fame" members of this Message Board, would never know of these details, which is of burning interest to them both! Not to mention how many songs where the 45 being sped up is the entire :03-:04 difference! To me, the song's sound can really change, due to these speed alterations, vs. CD versions that weren't. "Bell" PM'd me, stating that ":03 time differences can quickly and clearly be explained by turntable speed differences". I think all of us on the Board understand that this is possible. It goes without saying that this is why I have my Technics, radio-station model turntable checked, and re-calibrated if necessary, 4 times a YEAR, by our old Chief Engineer, who still works only a mile away from where I live. (FYI, it has NEVER needed an adjustment.)
For those editors on the Board, there are several instances where a :03 to :06 second time difference can (but not always) make a noticable difference in the re-creation process; it's not always simply a "fade to taste" scenario. Two days ago, in Bell's PM to me, he requested that I simply "send Pat offline" my "smaller listed/actual time differences", and to bypass the Board entirely with these details. Bell told me that he had no interest in reading about details that he considered to be insignificant, and intimated that he'd rather not see them posted to the Board at all. I was fairly offended that a person, only on this Board for two days, would PM me his unsolicited opinion, and my reply reflected that. I now see that "Bell" has "gone public" with his feelings. That is fine, Bell, and I will now do the same. I DO understand the point you're making, Bell - it's the "control" issue you seem to have, about what I post here, that I primarily object to. You sound like you know your music. But ignoring posts, or posters, that aren't of interest to you is perfectly acceptable here - we all do it. I know that seeing people post questions about "Non Top 40" songs, on a "Top 40" Board, is something I'm not personally thrilled about. But this is probably one of the only outlets where a long-burning personal song issue could possibly get resolved for the topic starter, so they "bend the rules" a bit, hoping to get their query answered here. Should they be banned from posting, because it's technically "not what Pat's Message Board is about?" Or is it simply about a bunch of guys who are trying to help each other out here, with song questions? Anyone can start a topic here, Bell. Hey, if Pat allowed, say, only "10 new topics a day", and my timings used up 8 of the 10 available topics, I WOULD then see your point. But there is no such rule here. I just think that this is America, and that one member shouldn't PM another, especially after only two days as a member, tell them that the nature of their posts are insignificant, and that they'd rather not see them at all. Bell says, "I'd hate to automatically have to skip all your posts, because I'm sure once in a while you do make a valid point!" Two weeks ago, I got another PM from a person (CollectoMan), active military, asking me to "send him my list" of exact timings, and that "he has over 1000 songs on HIS list, of songs he had the listed, but not actual timings for, and that he didn't own the 45s himself to time" and "Could I help him out?" I've been working on this, off-line, for him, for over a week now, and I wanted to "surprise" him for Christmas, with as many from his list as I possibly could. Bell, ALL I'm saying to you is "different strokes for different folks". I know some on the Board agree with you, and I know that some don't. But to ask someone to stop posting, because the info is not of interest to you, after only two days here, strikes me as a bit unusual. Today's follow-up PM to me indicates your feelings on the matter to be completely unchanged, and you have absolutely no idea why I've taken offense to what you initially sent me. I hope I've been better able to express myself here, and I, too, welcome feedback from all others concerned here.
Edited by jimct on 20 December 2007 at 1:14pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1743
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 12:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jim, keep those "3-second" posts coming! I also enjoy all the "non-Top 40" posts as well. Jim, what you're doing is a great service to the collectors here and they would be sorely missed.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 1:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
One of the things I really LOVE about this forum is that most of us don't get into childish name calling and games such as asking someone to stop posting timing information. 99% of all the posters always are extremely courteous to other board members, unlike some other forums I've visited (ehhem...PromoOnly.com).
I see absolutely no reason to ask someone to NOT post information on this forum, especially something as valuable as timing discrepancies. I also agree with Jim that non-database songs do have a place on this forum, even if they never made ANY charts. While most of the threads stick to songs in the top 40, I've been extremely pleased to be able to answer a question or two about an 80s rap record. To reiterate Jim's point, where else are collectors like us to go for that information?
Also, in case it appeared in my earlier post that I was taking a different stance, I added a thing or two for further clarification. While a 2 or 3 second fade difference (most of the time) isn't vital to me, I was in no way trying to say that those discrepancies should not be posted. In fact, there have been several of those small differences where I've taken the time to replicate the fade exactly. My point is that if I only have a CD that runs :02 too short, I probably won't go and buy a different CD to have the last :02.
Edited by aaronk on 20 December 2007 at 1:52pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 2:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Let me just say right off the bat that Jim's knowledge, expertise, and resourcefulness when it comes to providing valuable information on this board is second-to-none. I think it's safe to say that Jim has uncovered and contributed more highly useful DJ and commercial 45 info to this message board over the past 20 months than the rest of us could collectively come up with over a period of five years! You won't find a person who works harder on this board to dedicate an ENORMOUS amount of his time and resources to help out his fellow Top 40 collectors.
That said, I too would be highly offended if I had received an unsolicited private message from another board member suggesting I stop posting certain information because that particular member just doesn't find it useful. Well, I happen to be one of those members who DOES find tremendous value in each and every one of Jim's posts not only because I'm a "completist" when it comes to collecting Top 40 music on CD, but I also consider myself a "preservationist". In other words, I strive to collect 45 versions, LP versions, etc. in the exact run time length as the record labels produced and presented them to the public. To me, they're like "historical documents" of exactly how Americans heard their favorite music. Does having a 45 version on CD that runs :03 too short ruin the listening experience for me? Absolutely not. But from a purely historical perspective, this run time length is not 100% accurate. Therefore, I take it upon myself to seek out and even create what I'm looking for, and I'm thankful there are good folks out there willing to donate their time to supply this info for selective collectors like me!
Now, I may not personally care if a song on CD differs in length from the vinyl 45 by as little as :01 or :02, but there are folks on this board who do. For instance, I know Ed (edtop40) doesn't like any discrepency of any kind to exist, and he has every right to be as selective as he wishes! We all have our own personal reasons for why we collect music. I also know that Paul Haney, who works for Joel Whitburn's fantastic Record Research publications, specifically documents all the actual run times Jim regularly reports and they get printed in future editions of Whitburns' books! And if Pat is willing to include all this info in the database without any objection, then why should someone who's only been posting on the message board for a few days care?
As Jim pointed out, we all have our personal preferences on this board. For instance, I like reading about all the :03 run time discrepencies Jim runs across (and I've been able to verify for myself that these time differences are usually caused by early fades, and definitely not turntable speed differences). By the same token, I tend to tune out posts containing specific instructions on how to re-create a particular 45 version from CD because I personally prefer to only use an actual vinyl 45 dub as a reference point to ensure my edits are 100% exact. But I know there are many fellow music collectors on here who DO find that info very interesting and valuable and I think that's super! I can simply choose to move on to another thread that may address something of greater interest for me.
I've been posting very actively on Pat's fantastic message board since it was first launched in October, 2004. I thank Pat immensely for providing us with this forum and it's been nothing short of remarkable to see how much our little community has grown over time. We now have a greater number of knowledgable members than ever with lots of excellent info to contribute. But as a byproduct of this message board's blossoming popularity, I realize messages are getting posted at a faster rate and threads tend to become quickly "buried" within a couple days. I would not be opposed to creating separate folders on this message board dealing with a variety of topics so that readers can proactively search out the type of info they desire. This may help benefit good people like Gordon who visit the board looking for particular info and don't want to sift through a lot of miscellaneous posts to find what interests them. Here are a few examples of topics that perhaps these individual folders could represent:
General Top 40 on CD Info
Run Time Discrepencies
How to Create a Specific Version from CD
Is This Song Available on CD?
Database Errors
Non-Top 40 Hits
These separate forums should help spread out and organize the increasing mumber of message board posts. On the down side, this could lead to other issues. For instance, let's say someone posts a message about a song's run time discrepency in the appropriately designated folder. Then let's say, someone discovers a special remix on 45 for that same song. Should that remix difference be pointed out in the "Run Time Discrepency" folder, or should a new thread be started in the "General Top 40 on CD Info" folder. In other words, how possible would it be to keep all the folders completely on topic, while maintaining some sense of uniformity for discussion regarding individual songs?
Sorry for the long post and for taking us further away from the original thread topic, but these are some things I'm throwing out there for all to think about. For now, I'm going to echo Aaron's encouragement for everyone to keep the posts coming. After all, this is a public message board and we all love collecting Top 40 music on CD!
Edited by Todd Ireland on 20 December 2007 at 2:32pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 2:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, I think it's also great to see how our pool of posters has grown over the past several years. Honestly, though, this message board is relatively easy to keep up with, compared with other forums like the Steve Hoffman board. Some message boards have several new pages of threads hourly rather than daily. And it's really not too often here that we see more than a half dozen new threads being started or contributed to each day. Only once in a great while I'll log on to find more than a full page of new threads and posts to read. That's an exception rather than the norm, though.
To address the turntable speed issue, I can personally vouch for both Ed's and Jim's turntables. I own a Technics turntable myself, which has those nifty little dots around the platter. Those dots tell you if your turntable is running too fast or too slow, and mine is running exactly at the right speed. I've done several comparisons of songs timed on my turntable with the exact same records timed on their turntables, and I've come up with the exact same findings. I trust the timing info they've presented to be extremely accurate, so fear not!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eriejwg
MusicFan
Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 4:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
When I first visited this board around June of this year, I was amazed and overwhelmed with the vast of amount of information presented here. I've always been one to appreciate people's hard work.
In 2006, by sheer accident, it suddenly hit me about how it would be nice to have those '45 versions' I had when I was a young teen. Bought a crappy turntable and suddenly found myself purchasing and recording vinyl again!
Earlier this year, bought a much better turntable, purchased and self-taught myself on better software (Adobe Audition), and discovered these forums. I never realized for how many years I'd been playing LP, 'neither' and 'actual' 45 versions! Along the way, I've gotten to know all of you through emails and sooo appreciate all of the assistance from each and every one of you in regards to acquiring 45 versions, editing 45 versions and getting the correct timings in 45 versions.
At one point a few weeks back, was beginning to think I was asking too many stupid questions. Then, I realized, the correct info benefits everyone in Pat's community here!
Keep all the great info coming! I'm hooked on the info here. I need my '45 version fix' just like my morning coffee!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gary
MusicFan
Joined: 02 October 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 155
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 5:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I appreciate all the posts here. I've learned alot in the one+ year I've been here and realize I still have alot more to learn! Although I don't post alot, I have organized my 80's music by artist all the way from A's-L's so far and this board and databsse has been so helpful in helping me find the correct 45 version. Sometimes reading the posts daily I absorb what is said but don't have time to act upon it. Then later when researching that song, that post comes in more helpful then it would have been reading it on the day it was posted. Thank you all for your many contributions, as I have told Aaron, I feel guilty for not helping out more and receiving more that I could ever give! Happy Holidays to all!
Edited by Gary on 20 December 2007 at 5:59pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
995wlol
MusicFan
Joined: 10 December 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 271
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 7:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Very well put, Todd, Aaron, and John! I don't have much to add besides offer my sincere thanks to Jim as well. He absolutely goes ABOVE and BEYOND when assisting fellow top 40 enthusiasts, both through his posted insights as well as personal help offered "offline." Thanks again to Jim and everyone else who takes the time to dig through their stacks of cds, records, and tapes to offer their knowledge and assistance!!
Edited by 995wlol on 20 December 2007 at 8:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 20 December 2007 at 11:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree and want to thank all the people that have put up such great info here. So many people (especially Jim) have so much to offer. Jim has personally provided me with single versions, for which I'm eternally grateful. I can't imagine how many SINGLE VERSIONS I wouldn't have in my collection (or have made) if it wasn't for the contributors of this board.
I also want to clarify my above post that, with my many pros (and one con) mentioned, that I was not suggesting the time discrepancy info not be posted. In fact, I pointed out that it should be listed and that it trumps someone not wanting to read it.
In fact, there have been times where I discovered a single fade was just 8 seconds shorter than the album/CD version (e.g. "Walking on Sunshine") where I actually re-did the song and faded it to be that way. Though I wouldn't do that if I discovered a 3-second difference, there are people that would, and like I said, when there's obviously at least one person that might find this kind of info useful, it should be posted, IMHO.
I only opened up the conversation, i.e., asking what people felt, because I wanted to see other people's ideas, and actually, I'm now glad I did that because I love Todd's suggestion that the board be subdivided into categories. This happened on the Both Sides Now website a few years ago, and I think it's great to go straight to topics of interest to the reader. I hadn't even thought of that for this board and was only going to suggest that our topic titles could have short subjects with them -- for instance, the title/topic could include "TIME DISCREP" or "NON-TOP 40"
e.g.
ABBA "Waterloo" TIME DISCREP
(Note: Pat might need to make the title field a few characters longer). This way, if someone wants to ignore the non-top 40 posts or the posts about a time discrep, they need not go into the post (whereas just the title and artist listed does not indicate what the post is really about.)
Todd makes an interesting point about folders potentially going off topic (and btw, threads going off topic happens in posts anyway, even the way we're set up now). If that's an issue/concern, maybe a simple solution is to basically keep the system set up the way it is now, but list a topic as "Keeping the Faith - TIME DISCREP", and then anyone who really likes the song can check it out anyway in case the topic goes to the remix of that song. In other words, this might be a best-of-both-worlds solution/compromise. As Todd points out, person X might not even go into a TIME DISCREP folder (and miss a "Keeping the Faith" thread that goes off topic to the remix), but with this solution (a title like "Keeping the Faith - TIME DISCREP"), a person might respond "I love that song, let's see if they discuss anything besides the timing".
Edited by EdisonLite on 21 December 2007 at 12:07am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
EdisonLite
MusicFan
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2237
|
| Posted: 21 December 2007 at 12:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
And ironically, this is a thread about Melissa Manchester's "Just Too Many People", so who knows how many posters have missed this topic altogether? :)
Edited by EdisonLite on 21 December 2007 at 12:01am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 21 December 2007 at 12:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
EdisonLite, I really like your suggestion of being more descriptive of what the initial post is about. I think the character limitation is why most of us don't do it.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
bell
MusicFan
Joined: 16 December 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: 21 December 2007 at 10:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My goodness, reading Jim's assessment of my PM to him certainly makes me look like the evil monster newbie! Unfortunately, it is far from the truth and I explained that to him after he sent me a very hostile response that included passages like "your complete and utter ignorance", "mindless opinion", and "arrogant, overconfident human being". But that didn't stop his character assassination in this thread. So what was the intention of my original "private" message to him that was never intended to result in a public display of mudslinging? As I explained to Jim in my PM, it was my personal experience with analyzing 45s for variations and how three-second differences have not been substantial enough to the collecting circles I have been involved with. It is within what I call the "margin for error" when it comes to 45 analysis due to turntable speeds and listening for the oh-so-faint sounds in fade-outs. My original PM offered recommendations like placing a more descriptive heading in the thread for time variance postings, which is exactly what others have mentioned also in this thread. But when I offered it, Jim attacked me viciously. When I engaged others for opinions in this thread and people began sharing the same feelings I had, suddenly Jim hijacked the conversation by presenting me in such a light that it would make all of the veterans of this board want to rise up and defend his honor. Bravo Jim. It worked. You have now placed me in such a negative light that it would make it impossible for me to ever be welcomed here and you have received all of the praises to decorate the ego you felt was somehow damaged by my PM. But for what it was worth, I wanted to at least have an opportunity to explain my version of the unsettling exchange. Happy listening to all.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 22 December 2007 at 12:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I will happy to send anyone interested EVERY word of the Bell-Jim-Bell-Jim PM's, since Bell claims I took his words out of context. (I can't imagine why you would care to bother, though.) His initial :03 second opinion was not initially offered up to ALL on the Board, but only later, after Bell didn't receive his "desired response" from me. Instead it came in a PM, specifically and only to me. Intended or not, I took serious offense at its contents, which expressed Bell's clear personal displeasure with a major portion of my Board-posting activities, and his desire to have me change what I posted to better suit his personal interests. I was both COMPLETELY appalled and deeply offended personally, whether intended by Bell or not. In my 30 years in pro radio, nothing had ever even come close to the level of shock and utter disbelief I'd experienced after reading Bell's initial PM. Just the "balls" it took, for a "newbie" to send out in the first place, with NO standing at all on this Board, still has me dumbfounded. I strongly felt, as a "newbie", that Bell hadn't "earned the right yet" to even OFFER an opinion about Board policies/parameters. This ENTIRE issue, as well as many others, have all been completely ignored by Bell to date. I felt personally attacked in the PM, and I responded to Bell in sort of a combination of both "self-defense" and shock. I made NO secret of my ire to Bell's original post in my Board reply, and I stand by EVERY word of it! Bell, did you actually READ anything that either I or the other posters said, specifically about your issue? Isn't it possible that your :03 issue was rejected simply on its merits? No, instead you claim I "hijacked" the post, and then you got "railroaded". That isn't giving some VERY sharp people on this Board a heck of a lot of credit here, is it? So, let me get this straight: you PM someone; you criticize them, and now YOU'RE the "misunderstood, innocent victim" here, whose brilliant idea was unfairly rejected through "corruption". Gotcha! Bell, if I ever offend someone inadvertantly, I immediately offer up a sincere apology. When I asked for one from you, it sounded like you thought I had three heads, and categorically refused! Hey, I was 100% willing to forgive, forget and move on here. Apparently, you are not sorry. You remain 100% fixated on one small issue. Bell, we've already reviewed these timing issues, exhaustively, several times on the Board already. But what, now that "Bell" has arrived, we need to start all over again? How do you figure? I paid you several compliments in my last PM, Bell, trying to reach out to you. Where are all of THOSE quotes in your last post? Man, me having to type this in, and then all of you having to waste your valuable time reading this, is just SUCH nonsense! I can only stand on my reputation, and relationships, with my many friends on this Board, and I thank them for their support. Bell, it's Christmas. I TRULY want you on this Board. I believe you have a lot to offer. Can't you just "play by the existing rules", stick to the music initially, and contribute a few things first, before firing off PM's to people, and trying to "Amend Our Constitution?" Apparently not....I would be MORE than happy for our Moderator, Pat Downey, to intervene here, Bell, send you and I separate PM's, advising us of his feelings, because I have music research & present wrapping I'd really rather be doing right now! Or is that "having my honor defended", too!
Edited by jimct on 22 December 2007 at 6:07am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eriejwg
MusicFan
Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: 22 December 2007 at 10:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jim:
No need to defend yourself. I remember when I first joined this board, you stepped to the plate, saved me (and have many others too) alot of $$ early on in acquiring proper 45 versions, and often, out of print versions. It goes without saying that time difference postings are valuable info.
I can attest to improper speed on turntables. The very first turntable I purchased last year was nothing more than a home turntable. It's speed out of the box was probably 47-48rpm. I soon grew tired adjusting pitch in software.
I then purchased an Audio-Technica AT-PL120. This is a lower cost, but almost identical twin, to the workhorse Technics 1200. It's got those pretty little dots on the platter to calibrate speed just like the 1200. One of the reasons I purchased it, was if you press the 33 and 45 speed buttons simultaneously, it goes 78rpm! My goal someday, with the proper stylus, is to perhaps record and cleanup my Mom's 78rpm records that sit in a cabinet untouched for many years. I'm sure she'd love to hear these again! There's also a couple features that may not be present on the 1200.
Todd:
I said early on, that if the board was divided into more specific forums, it would be easier to find specific posts. I really applaud your proposed folder lineup. It certainly would make it easier!
General Top 40 on CD Info
Run Time Discrepencies
How to Create a Specific Version from CD
Is This Song Available on CD?
Database Errors
Non-Top 40 Hits
Let me add another -
Off Topic Posts (like this one has become!! LOL)
Edited by eriejwg on 22 December 2007 at 10:12am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Melissa Manchester-"Just Too Many..."
