| Author |
|
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 28 August 2006 at 8:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
another interesting one here we have
the cassingle starts as if it skips and the version from her self titled cd starts smooth........by pure chance i found the correct cassingle version on the cd
(S) (4:45) Flashback 78308 Billboard #1 Hits Of The ‘90s
this cd has the correct skipped sounding intro....does anyone have the 45 and does it contain this skipped sounding intro or is it smooth....
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 4:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wow, Ed... Your attention to detail knows no end. You're amazing.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Pat Downey
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 6:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ed I am quite impressed with your detective work on Black Velvet. Seems as though there is a very brief segment truncated on the cassette single introduction and the version found on Billboard #1 Hits Of The '90s (about .15 seconds). When I checked the vinyl 45 I discovered that this truncation is present on the vinyl 45 too.
Chat board members, do you think this obvious mastering error should qualify this truncated version to be called a "45 version"?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
maciav
MusicFan
Joined: 02 June 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 8:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I vote for the truncated version to be called "45 version". I really didn't know there was any other version since my 45, and my "Billboard #1 Hits of the 90's" CD have the truncated version. And in my area at least (Southcentral PA), that was the version always played on the pop stations and the rock stations.
__________________
Mike C. from PA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 7:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Since we're only talking about the first .15 seconds of "Black Velvet" being truncated on commercial single copies, I would actually be more inclined to not call this a "45 version". It's one thing if an opening note was deliberately edited off the 45 (such as on the Little River Band's "The Other Guy"), but it's another thing if the opening note is fractionally truncated due to what is clearly a mastering error. I would instead suggest making a comment in the database under the song title as follows:
The opening note of the intro is very slightly truncated on commercial single copies.
Then, the following comment could be posted next to the Billboard #1 Hits of the '90s disc entry, and any other CDs that may apply:
(contains the very slightly truncated intro heard on commercial single copies).
Any other opinions?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 10:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I also agree with Todd. Given that it wasn't a deliberate edit or fade in, I'd vote not to call it a 45 version.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 10:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree with Todd as well... a note under the song title, then a note beside CDs that match, something like "(with trucated opening note)," is the most logical. I agree that it's not a real "45 version."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
maciav
MusicFan
Joined: 02 June 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 8:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Todd, Aaron, and Brian:
I came to this site as a passionate collector of music. I found out about this site by doing research when I became fed up from spending money on CDs, and more-times-than-not, purchasing one that did not have the version of the song that I wanted. In fact, my eyes were opened very widely when I found out how many versions of singles exist. Having said that:
I am a novice when it comes to mixes and making home versions of music. I do not have expensive software and / or hardware that allows me to "re-create" the 45-version, etc. Nor have I worked as a professional in the music industry, other than working in a record store during my twenties. Therefore, I may be looking at this from a different perspective than the rest of you. Having said that:
Don't record companies somtimes "play games" with their music releases? Isn't it possible that Atlantic intended for the 45 released in 1989 - 1990 to have the truncation? If we can assume that to be true, how can we assume that the single had a "mastering error"? But really, isn't that all a moot point also? To me, the only thing that matters is that the original 45 had the truncation. To me, that means any CD with the truncation has the "true" "45 version".
Again, I am a passionate fan of music and not a technical expert like the rest of you. But at the same time, I wanted to express my thoughts, and based on my reasoning, see if the rest of you are in agreement with me.
Thanks.
__________________
Mike C. from PA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 10:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
maciav, I understand your reasoning. Personally, I highly doubt that a record company would purposely truncate the intro by only a split second. Why bother? I also don't think they "play games" with their music releases. After all, this is an artist's work they are playing with. I would think that most artists don't like their music tinkered with.
The reasons I agree with Todd are because
1) I would not want to spend money to purchase the "45 version" of "Black Velvet" knowing that the only difference is a slight .15 second truncation on the intro, and
2) given Todd's suggestion to list the note about the truncation being present on commercial copies, I would know that I didn't have to search for a "45 version," while you would know that you'll have to buy the truncated version to have what was released commercially.
I think Todd's suggestion would satisfy both of us as collectors, while listing "45 version" would cause some people to buy this song again and be disappointed to find out there's only a .15 second difference.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
maciav
MusicFan
Joined: 02 June 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 12:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Aaron,
Think about this: if the record companies didn't "play games", this web site / chat board may not even exist. It is only because of all of the different mixes / versions of singles that record companies release (totally pre-determined by them and at our mercy) that we are even having this discussion. In that sense, I do think they play games. They have to play games in this sense to drive their sales so that people will keep buying the same songs over and over again. Don't you agree? And I don't find it hard to believe at all that Atlantic could have purposely released a slightly truncated "Black Velvet." And even if it was unintentional, Atlantic apparently chose not to correct it during its chart run to #1. To me, this makes it the official "45 version" that was in release at the time. To your other point, many artists have had battles with record companies over the final product to be released to the public and lost.
__________________
Mike C. from PA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Underground Dub
MusicFan
Joined: 10 July 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 348
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 12:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Songs are most commonly edited by labels to keep them at a desirable length for both radio and the 7" format or to lend 'hit value'. This is hardly a case of a removed verse or chorus repeat.
The average (and slightly above average) listener would not notice a track starting .15 seconds late (meaning edtop40 is just a freak, that's all...j/k!) and to state this was specially done for the single is frankly rediculous.
There are singles with milisecond drop outs in one channel, but we aren't going to consider such a thing a single version are we? "Album Version with mastering glitch" better describes this kind of issue.
Edited by Underground Dub on 31 August 2006 at 12:46pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 1:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree that it's a mastering error, but it should be noted in the database that all singles had that mastering error.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 1:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
maciav wrote:
| Isn't it possible that Atlantic intended for the 45 released in 1989 - 1990 to have the truncation? |
|
|
Nah... it's not like it's a different mix. I'm glad we noticed it, and if I were using it on a collection, I personally would probably use the truncated version. But this wasn't intentional.
maciav wrote:
| I do not have expensive software and / or hardware that allows me to "re-create" the 45-version, etc. |
|
|
Don't fret, neither do we... I don't think any of us spent more than $50 on the software we use to edit songs.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
maciav
MusicFan
Joined: 02 June 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Brian,
Where do you get software like this, and what computer requirements do you need?
__________________
Mike C. from PA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
maciav wrote:
| Think about this: if the record companies didn't "play games", this web site / chat board may not even exist. |
|
|
I agree that record companies often times remix singles, make edits, etc. I wouldn't necessarily call that "playing games." They are doing it for a particular purpose---to make a song sound better or to shorten the length for radio play. I honestly don't think someone suggested "Hey, just for fun, let's cut off the first .15 seconds for the single release."
I'm certainly glad that this group of collectors has a place to discuss the many different versions of songs. I don't disagree with you, maciav, that if you really want to have exactly what was issued on the single, you'll need to get that truncated intro. I just don't want to make unncessary purchases, and I feel a "45 version" comment is misleading.
As Underground Dub says above, there are plenty of mastering glitches to note. Just because the EQ is slightly different or it fades a couple seconds early, to me, does not mean it should get a special designation.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
maciav wrote:
Brian,
Where do you get software like this, and what computer requirements do you need? |
|
|
I'm not sure what everyone else uses, but I am most comfortable with Cool Edit Pro. I use versions 1.2 and 2.1. Both of them are out of print, but you can find official copies on ebay for around $50.00. I like version 2.1 better overall; however there are a few functions in 1.2 that tend to work better than in the newer version.
Today, Cool Edit Pro (formerly sold by Syntrillium) is sold under the name Adobe Audition. I believe it retails for a few hundred dollars. I've never used it, so I don't know if it's better, worse, or the same as Cool Edit Pro.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 01 September 2006 at 3:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aaronk wrote:
maciav wrote:
| Think about this: if the record companies didn't "play games", this web site / chat board may not even exist. |
|
|
I agree that record companies often times remix singles, make edits, etc. I wouldn't necessarily call that "playing games." They are doing it for a particular purpose---to make a song sound better or to shorten the length for radio play. I honestly don't think someone suggested "Hey, just for fun, let's cut off the first .15 seconds for the single release."
I'm certainly glad that this group of collectors has a place to discuss the many different versions of songs. I don't disagree with you, maciav, that if you really want to have exactly what was issued on the single, you'll need to get that truncated intro. I just don't want to make unncessary purchases, and I feel a "45 version" comment is misleading.
As Underground Dub says above, there are plenty of mastering glitches to note. Just because the EQ is slightly different or it fades a couple seconds early, to me, does not mean it should get a special designation. |
|
|
Very beautifully articulated points. One other thing I might add is to keep in mind that those of us who seek out multiple versions of a song make up a very small fraction of the music buying public. I don't think record labels release edits and remixes of songs with the belief that lots of additional money will be made as a result of consumers seeking to purchase each version. As Aaron has pointed out, labels are always seeking optimum ways to increase exposure for their songs and artists and often a song will be edited or remixed so that it is more suitable for radio airplay or for a particular radio format. I believe the overwhelming majority of the music buying public are content to have just one version of a song they like, regardless if its an LP version, 45 version, DJ edit, etc.
I very much respect the thoughtfulness and passion behind your position, maciav. By the same token, I believe having the database specifically note which domestic CD releases contains the slightly truncated opening note of "Black Velvet" adequately serves readers who are actively seeking the song on CD in its exact commercial single incarnation. I agree with Aaron that I would be unhappy if I spent money purchasing a CD I'm led to believe contains a 45 version of "Black Velvet" only to eventually discover that the sole difference between the 45 and LP is a tiny mastering error in the song's opening note.
Edited by Todd Ireland on 01 September 2006 at 3:44pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 02 September 2006 at 7:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
ok...i've been on vaca for a few days and it looks like i stirred up quite a bit of talk on this one........my opinion is, regardless of why or how they did what they did, they did do it..........and as beening a stickler for detail, i would want to know about this difference and which cd's have the correct single version and which don't...........so.......i would list each cd with it's version and then ALSO put a note below the title saying something like "first 0:015 of this song is truncated, either by design or error, but the 45 version intro is clearly different than the full cd/lp version"..............end of story........
Edited by edtop40 on 02 September 2006 at 7:39am
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Underground Dub
MusicFan
Joined: 10 July 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 348
|
| Posted: 02 September 2006 at 10:24am | IP Logged
|
|
|
"first 0:015 of this song is truncated, either by design or error, but the 45 version intro is clearly different than the full cd/lp version"..............
...but that sounds so stupid...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 02 September 2006 at 10:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
why??...it is different, no???
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: alannah myles "black velvet"
