| Author |
|
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 03 June 2006 at 3:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks to Doug, who just provided me with a comparison copy of "I Want To Take You Higher," I have just uncovered another piece of information. This song, although listed in the database as "45 version" and "LP version" is really just a difference in lengths between the 45 and LP. Of course, there may be mono/stereo differences; however, the stereo copies that currently read "45 version" should probably indicate "45 length."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Pat Downey
Admin Group
Joined: 01 October 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 04 June 2006 at 3:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Aaron, this goes back to the old question that has been brought up several times on this chat board and that is "at what point does a lengthy LP appearance become an LP version vs. LP length?". In this case there is a long instrumental jam that begins right where the 45 ends giving this song a totally different feel on the LP appearance. I have arbitrarily chosen to call this an "LP version" because of the content of the song after 3:02 where the 45 fades out.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 04 June 2006 at 4:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
i would agree with aaron....if the 45 is an early fade of the cd/lp version, no matter what length the balance of the song goes it should be listed as lp length and NOT lp version......
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
sriv94
MusicFan
Joined: 16 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
| Posted: 04 June 2006 at 5:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm on Pat's side here (sorry, guys). I still say songs like "Slow Ride" warrant a "version" designation because it's really not as simple as an extension of the fade distinguishing the LP from the 45. And that does kind of apply to "I Want To Take You Higher" as well.
In a normal situation, if a fade were to continue on an LP for a period of time of say, 30 seconds (just to throw out a number), it would get awfully monotonous unless other elements were incorporated into the end of an LP version (like "Slow Ride"). That does not mean that all songs that have that kind of discrepancy warrant the designation--it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But personally it's hard me to justify a single fade running (2:57) and the full LP running (5:20) as a "length" difference for "I Want To Take You Higher" even though the only difference is that the single fades earlier. My own two cents--your mileage may (and probably will) vary.
Edited by sriv94 on 04 June 2006 at 5:59pm
__________________
Doug
---------------
All of the good signatures have been taken.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 05 June 2006 at 12:01am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I believe it comes down to this... The diehard audio editors on this board often times use the database info create our own edits. As an editor, it's handy to know when a 45 version is nothing more than an early fade of the LP version (regardless of how early that fade is). Cases like these throw me off because it makes me think that there's something more to it...an edit, a mix difference, etc.
I understand Pat and Doug's reasoning, but at what point does a 45 length become a 45 version? If it can't be measured by a specific amount of time, then what is the qualifier? Take the entries for Prince in the database as an example...
"I Wanna Be Your Lover" is listed as "length" but the difference is about the same as "I Want To Take You Higher." The 45 length is (2:57), while the LP length is (5:46), and it also goes into an instrumental jam.
Same thing goes for "Purple Rain" "When Doves Cry" "Sign 'O' The Times" and "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man." All of those tracks are listed as "length," and in my opinion they should be; however, they all could be eligible for a "version" comment based on Pat's description above.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
davidclark
MusicFan
Joined: 17 November 2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1100
|
| Posted: 05 June 2006 at 5:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm with aaronk on this one. I've taken the approach that if the 45 is simply an early fade (regardless of what the LP version gets in to), it's "length" (although I label it "45 fade"). If I see "45 version", then I assume a difference in edit, mix, overdubs, etc. In my <personal> database, I document the differences when I am aware of them. But to each his own!
__________________
dc1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 05 June 2006 at 5:48am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Guys, let's not continue to go around in circles on this issue. We all have our opinions on it, right or wrong. Long ago, Pat made a personal decision, which involves MANY entries, that he has ALREADY told us would be far too time-consuming to change. Some of us may not like this. But let's respect Pat enough to drop it. It's just not productive. It's HIS publication. Nothing is perfect. Us "version re-creators" must do our best to work around the inconvenience, accept what cannot easily be changed, and move forward - there's much 45 work still to be done, my good friends.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
edtop40
MusicFan
Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: 05 June 2006 at 7:59am | IP Logged
|
|
|
here, here!!!
__________________
edtop40
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 05 June 2006 at 10:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
| Long ago, Pat made a personal decision, which involves MANY entries, that he has ALREADY told us would be far too time-consuming to change. |
|
|
Yes, I agree. I'm not trying to argue with Pat's reasoning, but rather trying to understand it. It seems to me inconsistent that "I Want To Take You Higher" and "I Wanna Be Your Lover" have similar issues, but one is "length" and the other is "version." Actually, it might have been me who suggested changing the Prince songs in my "Prince 45 Versions" thread a while back. If that's the case, I apologize for making your database inconsistent, Pat.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 13 July 2007 at 7:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My commercial 45, which is mono, has a listed time of (2:55), but an actual time of (3:00).
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 14 July 2007 at 4:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Pat, with all the database updates you had to key in, this is certainly understandable, but you happened to put this song's timing info as a notation to the Jackson 5's "I Want You Back" by mistake.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
The Hits Man
MusicFan
Joined: 04 February 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: 15 July 2007 at 1:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I call any song that is a different mix or recording as a 'version'. Otherwise, if a song is just a different length, it is called as such.
If a song is both a different mix and length, it gets a 'version' designation.
Anytime there is a difference between mono or stereo, it is a 'version'.
__________________
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Sly & The Family Stone - I Want To Take..
