| Author |
|
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 18 April 2007 at 8:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Guys, as I began to time my original 1971 commercial 45s tonight, I found that I had FOUR different original stock 45 copies for this one. One has the older, blocked, blue and yellow Enterprise insignia, with "Enterprise", in big yellow letters, just to its right, featuring a deadwax of "EM-00746." This exact number is also noted, in small print, on the 45 label. This first 45 is on vinyl, is in mono, and is the one we've long considered the "true" 45 version, which means it's missing the lyrics "mother" and "damn right." My next two 45s are also on vinyl, but features the "newer" Enterprise multi-colored "E" design. In small print, on both of these 45s, it states "EM-00746 SP". Both of these are also the "true" 45 versions, and have deadwaxes of "EM-00746-1 9-27-71" and "EM-00746-2 9-27-71", respectively. All 3 of these initial commercial 45s have a listed time of (3:15), but an actual time of (3:14). Nothing earth shattering so far, I know. HOWEVER, my final commercial 45 is a TOTALLY different story. First off, it was put out on styrene, not vinyl. This includes the same "ENA-9038" label catalog number info as my other three stock 45s, but the "small print" number is different: "ES-00747". But this commercial 45 copy is in STEREO, not mono, features the newer label logo, and DOES feature both the "mother" and "damn right" lyrics on it!!! Here's my deadwax info for this copy: "T ES-0747-1 -L NIN-", with the end info actually looking more like "-L NIIX-" to the naked eye. So, this new discovery seems to legitimize many of the current database CD appearances, Pat. Although this "stereo 45 version" is not the one I remember hearing on the AM radio back in 1971 (the "true" 45 version is), at appears certain that at least a few commercially-issued 1971 45s for this song, including one of my four copies, were put out this way. Additionally, this final commercial 45 copy has both a listed and actual time of (3:15). Good luck trying to succinctly explain all this in your database, Pat. I tried to be as complete with all of the many details as possible.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 18 April 2007 at 10:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wow, Jim, what a find! Are you absolutely sure the stereo 45 was issued in 1971? Does it have the same catalog number on the label?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 18 April 2007 at 10:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
| This includes the same "ENA-9038" label catalog number info as my other three stock 45s.... |
|
|
Brian, I'm with you, my friend - I thought of that possibility as well. But it has the same flip side as the three others, in addiion to the EXACT same catalog number! I simply do not have a SHRED of evidence to make me believe this stereo 45 of mine isn't an original 1971 issue!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 19 April 2007 at 2:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Great info, Jim! Thanks for posting that.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Brian W.
MusicFan
Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2507
|
| Posted: 19 April 2007 at 7:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Pat, after reading your update for "Shaft," I wonder if the term "standard 45 version" might be more accurate than "true 45 version" in this case.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 19 April 2007 at 9:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm thinking comments like "censored 45 version" and "uncensored 45 version" would work well here.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KentT
MusicFan
Joined: 25 May 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 650
|
| Posted: 26 February 2010 at 9:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have one of those oddball Stereo 45 pressings with the
newer label design. This was released in early 1972 when
the song was becoming a re-current. It was indeed mastered
by L. Nix. My copy was pressed by PL (Plastic Products in
Memphis). The earlier 45 singles were mastered by Harold
Craft at MasterCraft in Memphis and were mono and edited
versions. I own one of those copies as well with the
original style Enterprise label. My early single was given
to me by the Stax promo rep. The late copy I bought new
when I saw it was Stereo 7 months later in 1972.
Edited by KentT on 26 February 2010 at 9:02pm
__________________
I turn up the good and turn down the bad!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 26 February 2010 at 11:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for the valuable additional pressing details, Kent. I just checked the song's "current hit run" on the BB Hot 100, though, and four different months were involved, from mid-October of '71, and extending into the early weeks of January of '72. His follow-up, "Do Your Thing", didn't even debut on BB until Feb. 26th of 1972. It was never my personal experience that labels would keep pressing up "original stock #" 45s after a song's current chart run ended. Quite the opposite, in fact - I often recall being surprised at how quickly the labels would press up/ship out their recent hits onto their "Golden Oldies" 45 series. So, while I much appreciate your post, Kent, I do not agree with your conclusion that our stereo 45s are somehow now disqualified as being a "current" pressing. To me, they are more likely from one of the very last of Enterprise's current stock 45 pressing runs, in Jan. 72. Which, coincidentally, happened to occur just as the Stax/Volt/Enterprise family of labels were beginning to transition over to issuing stereo stock 45s. To me, your "I bought it as a re-current 7 months later" statement could simply mean that you actually bought a "current, Jan. 1972 stereo pressing" when you first personally happened upon it weeks/months later, in the Spring of '72. Is this possible? Besides, I'm sure you were putting as many hours in at your station back then as I put in at mine, and I know that I couldn't get to my local record store nearly as often as I would have liked during most weeks! :)
Edited by jimct on 26 February 2010 at 11:57pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 27 February 2010 at 10:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I can't say whether or not Jim's stereo single was an end-of-chart-run pressing made from a different master or a reissue, but I can say that it was NOT the stereo promo version. The stereo side of my promo is the same edit as the mono side ("damn right" and "mother" being ducked), only in stereo.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 27 February 2010 at 1:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks for the mono/stereo promo details, Steve; it's one of the very few '71 promos I don't own myself. To me, the earlier, censored version was the only one I ever heard on 1971 Top 40 radio, so I'm not at all alleging that the uncensored 45 was "definitive". My stereo single was defintely from a different master. Long ago, I remember reading somewhere that Isaac was far from thrilled with the initial 45's censoring. Perhaps they even included a copy of this later, "uncensored, stereo 45 version" in Hayes' office inbox. It sure would have made him feel like the label listened to his "edit" complaint. Besides, it was already a radio smash on the way down, so this stereo stock 45 wouldn't impact radio at all. FYI, Hayes had long been a mainstay of the Stax/Volt production braintrust, and when the company ended their long-standing working agreement with Atlantic, there were new "artist" opportunities, so he took advantage. By now, with both his classic 1969 mega-hit "Hot Buttered Soul" LP, followed up by a #1 single, he was by far the label's top moneymaker - and probably someone worth a little extra effort to keep happy by pressing up some "we need to press one more 45 batch anyway", uncensored 45 copies. Never underestimate a label's desire to want to keep their top profit-makers happy, I say!
Edited by jimct on 27 February 2010 at 4:01pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 27 February 2010 at 10:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
| I do not agree with your conclusion that our stereo 45s are somehow now disqualified as being a "current" pressing. |
|
|
I actually didn't take KentT's post to mean that the stereo 45s were not a "current" pressing. I understood it as the song was becoming a radio recurrent, nearing the end of its chart run. He did say that the stereo 45 was released in early 1972, but that he had bought it 7 months after receiving his first copy from the record rep in 1971.
I don't think there is any disagreement about a legit, original, uncensored 45 version.
Edited by aaronk on 27 February 2010 at 10:13pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Isaac Hayes-"Theme From Shaft" update
