| Author |
|
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2242
|
| Posted: 02 October 2014 at 8:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Still a favorite of mine from 1979.
Years ago, on the radio show, just for giggles, I decided the 12" single was too long to play in its entirety, so instead I played it at the wrong speed at 45 RPM. I thought it worked pretty nicely at chipmunk speed, and 135 BPM! Only later did I hear stories that the UK 12" singles were pressed at 33-1/3 RPM, but UK DJs inadvertently played them at 45 RPM (like most other UK 12" singles), and the sped-up version is what became a hit over there! I still can't confirm this story, but even if it's not true, it's still a good urban legend.
You don't have many options on CD for this song, and even fewer inexpensive options.
LP version (runs about 7:34)
This was also used on the 12" single.
The first LP version on CD was probably A&M's full length Rise CD, which is ridiculously hard to find and is often bootlegged (from what I've seen on the Steve Hoffman board). Pat's book says it runs 7:36.
I have the LP version on A&M's Classics Vol. 20 (1987). This is a pricey disc, but it's common enough so that I've seen one with my own eyes. Here, it runs 7:34 and 99.4 BPM throughout (it's a live drummer playing to a click track). Sound is quite good, with an excellent dynamic range, good volume levels, a good EQ, and no noise reduction artifacts on the fade.
I also have the LP version on A&M's Definitive Hits (2001), where it runs 7:35, and 99.1 BPM throughout. Sounds is also pretty good. It's about 3 dB louder than Classics, with just a tiny emphasis on the low end and a tiny rollback of the high end, compared to Classics. It's also much cheaper than Classics. I slightly prefer Classics, but only because there's a small amount of clipping on Definitive Hits, which I probably can't even hear.
45 edit (runs 3:50)
The only place I have the 45 edit is Time-Life's AM Gold Vol. 30 #1 Hits Of The '70s '75-'79 (2000), where it runs 3:50 and 99.4 BPM throughout. Sound is also good, with significantly more mid-range than either of the two LP-version discs. No evidence of noise reduction on the fade. The fade is plenty hissy, which makes me think the source tape is the real 45 version from 1979, and not an after-the-fact recreation from 2000.
I'm going to attempt editing instructions for recreating the 45 from Classics Vol. 20:
Segment 1
a little over 14 beats long; ends between beats
Extends from 0:00.0 to 0:09.0 of both LP version and 45 edit
Remove the 16 beats from 0:09.0 to 0:18.7 of LP version (edits are not on the beats, but between them).
Segment 2
about 28 beats long; beginning and end are between beats
Extends from 0:09.0 to 0:26.0 of 45 edit
Extends from 0:18.7 to 0:35.6 of LP version
Remove the 8 beats from 0:35.6 to 0:40.5 of LP version (also not on the beats, but between them).
Segment 3
a little less than 204 full beats; ends on a true downbeat
Extends from 0:26.0 to 2:28.8 of 45 edit
Extends from 0:40.5 to 2:43.3 of LP version
Remove the 224 beats (downbeat to downbeat) from 2:43.3 to 4:58.5 of the LP version.
Segment 4
82 beats long, begins and ends on downbeats
Extends from 2:28.8 to 3:18.4 of 45 edit
Extends from 4:58.5 to 5:48.1 of LP version
Remove the 96 beats from 5:48.1 to 6:46.1 of the LP version.
Segment 5
54 beats long, begins and ends on downbeats
Extends from 3:18.4 to 3:51.0 of 45 edit
Extends from 6:46.1 to 7:18.6 of LP version
Fade
22 beats long
Extends from 3:37.7 to 3:51.0 of 45 edit
Extends from 7:05.4 to 7:18.6 of LP version
That's four edits, two of them being off-beat, and an early fade. Pay close attention to the timings listed and you'll be OK.
Edited by crapfromthepast on 03 October 2014 at 7:08am
__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Yah Shure
MusicFan
Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: 02 October 2014 at 10:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
crapfromthepast wrote:
| I played it at the wrong speed at 45 RPM. I thought it worked pretty nicely at chipmunk speed, and 135 BPM! Only later did I hear stories that the UK 12" singles were pressed at 33-1/3 RPM, but UK DJs inadvertently played them at 45 RPM (like most other UK 12" singles), and the sped-up version is what became a hit over there! I still can't confirm this story, but even if it's not true, it's still a good urban legend. |
|
|
Ron, there was a story in the Wall Street Journal just last week in which Herb said in an interview that his nephew, Randy Albert, who'd co-written "Rise," had wanted him to cut it at 120 BPM, but that Herb thought it worked better and sounded more soulful at a slower 100.
So how'd it sound when you played it at 78 RPM? ;)
Here's a link to the WSJ story:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/herb-alpert-readies-new-album -1411489165
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
The Hits Man
MusicFan
Joined: 04 February 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: 03 October 2014 at 8:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
It sounds sexier at 100 BPM. That's why it was a hit.
__________________
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Herb Alpert - Rise
