| Author |
|
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 06 May 2006 at 4:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Stereo side of stock and promo state (3:45), and run a second longer. The mono side listed the time as (2:45). Thought it was a label typo at first. Then, in the smallest type I have EVER seen on any 45, I notice (short version) in parens after the time. I then clean my glasses, and take a 2nd look at the stereo side - sure enough, there's (long version) in similarly microscopic fashion. Short mono side actually runs (2:46).
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 30 June 2007 at 9:24am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks to Jim, I was able to verify that the "short version" contains only one edit, cutting from the midpoint of the first chorus to the midpoint of the second chorus.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 28 May 2008 at 5:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As I recall, my original 1974 stock copy of this 45 had an actual run time in the (3:45-3:46) range, but this copy was stolen from my station lock-up back in 1986. I have finally acquired a replacement stock 45 copy, which is stereo. To my surprise, it also has a listed time of (3:45), same as my original copy, but this copy has an actual time of only (2:46). It is exactly the same version that appears on the "short version" of my DJ 45, which I've already detailed earlier in this thread.
Edited by jimct on 28 May 2008 at 5:11am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KentT
MusicFan
Joined: 25 May 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 650
|
| Posted: 28 May 2008 at 7:35am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a vinyl 45 of this which is the long (3:46) version. It is Stereo. Apparently, there was a Short version of this on a Stock 45. My copy does indicate Long Version.
__________________
I turn up the good and turn down the bad!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
abagon
MusicFan
Joined: 01 March 2008
Location: Japan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
| Posted: 28 May 2008 at 8:04am | IP Logged
|
|
|
As a reference.
"So You Are A Star" on the LP" Hollywood Situation"(Casablanca NLBP 7004 US issue) is stated "3:45" on the record label, and the LP running time is the same as the listed time.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
TimNeely
MusicFan
Joined: 09 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: 28 May 2008 at 6:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
There are two different stock 45s of this song; I have both of them.
Casablanca 0108, which was distributed by Warner Bros., has the listed 3:45/actual 3:46 as noted in the first post. Casablanca 801, which was the new number after the label left Warners, has the 2:46 A-side. It's possible that there is overlap, but from my limited experience with this 45, that seems to be the best way to tell which stock version you have: 0108=long, 801=short.
The song didn't get a lot of airplay in the Philadelphia area, where I was in 1974, but in those rare instances that I heard it, I always heard the short version.
Edited by TimNeely on 28 May 2008 at 6:46pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tedler
MusicFan
Joined: 26 July 2011
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: 04 August 2011 at 5:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
TimNeely wrote:
There are two different stock 45s of this song; I have both of them.
...
The song didn't get a lot of airplay in the Philadelphia area, where I was in 1974, but in those rare instances that I heard it, I always heard the short version.
|
|
|
That's funny, because in Providence, RI (where I grew up in the 70's), they also only played the short version.
When I bought the 45 back then, I got the short version. So I never knew there was more to the 2nd verse. I believe the "..and you play the part, OK" was what was cut, and so a few years ago when I got a VA CD with the song on it, I was taken back (and happily surprised) when I heard that lyric.
I wonder why they cut that verse out back then.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 04 August 2011 at 10:35am | IP Logged
|
|
|
tedler wrote:
| I wonder why they cut that verse out back then. |
|
|
A lot of radio stations wouldn't play anything longer than 3:00 or 3:30 back then, hence the short edits. Exceptions were made for superstar acts like Elton John.
Even EJ was subjected to "house edits"...the station I did weekends at in '74/75 played custom edits of "Lucy in The Sky..." & "Someone Saved My Life Tonight".
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 09 July 2013 at 10:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just bumping up this thread since Abagon's LP run time info for Hudson Brothers' "So You Are a Star" was never incorporated into the database (actual and printed LP time is 3:45). With that said, all database CD appearances of the song to date should probably have a "LP and long 45 version" comment.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 7:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Todd Ireland wrote:
| Just bumping up this thread since Abagon's LP run time info for Hudson Brothers' "So You Are a Star" was never incorporated into the database (actual and printed LP time is 3:45). |
|
|
But again - like w/ The Romantics - it's worth noting that abagon's LP is, in fact, a re-issue, as indicated by the "NBLP-7004" catalog no. that he claims is printed on his copy. As TimNeely accurately pointed out in his post above, this Hudson Brothers single ("So You Are a Star") & album (Hollywood Situation) came out just as Casablanca was transitioning from Warner Bros. to indie distribution in the fall of '74, and abagon's LP is the later indie version. The original Warner-distributed pressings of Hollywood Situation were on Casablanca NB-9008. Don't own either version of the album myself, but I should know, since I helped compile the first-ever (nearly complete) Casablanca album discography on-line some 14 years ago (1999), and is still posted (and referenced more than any other) to this day...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
abagon
MusicFan
Joined: 01 March 2008
Location: Japan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 9:06am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My LP is "Distributed by Casablanca records", don't have "Warner" description on the record label and the LP cover.
But the catalog number "NBLP-7004" of my "Hollywood Situation" LP is the same as the description in the Joel Whitburn Top Pop Albums book.
--abagon
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 10:34am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Over the years, I have surely come across at least 50 different stock
copies of this 45. I think I've only seen two that were of the WB-
distributed variety, while the other 48 were a 100% Casablanca-as-an-
indie-label 45 pressing. This change in distribution happened very early
on, during this 45's current chart run.
Isn't it really just common sense to conclude that *any* Casablanca 0108
45 copy pressed up during its late 1974 run as a Top 40 hit, whether WB-
distributed or not, qualifies as a legitimate, "original" pressing? This song
debuted in BB on 9/21/74. It didn't peak until 11/23. How can a 45 copy
pressed up independently, by Casablanca on, let's say, 10/25/74, be
considered a "re-issue?" It isn't. In collector circles, the term "re-issue"
means a subsequent 45 release, *after" a song has ended its hit run, and
has fallen off the charts. If Ed happened to provide us with a 45 timing
from a non-WB distributed 45, should both Pat and all of us disregard
Ed's report? Of course not.
Same criteria for LPs. Therefore, I totally support Abagon's assertion that
his "Hollywood Situation" Casablanca 7004 US LP copy is both 100%
original and authentic.
What if a person didn't happen to buy one of the first 1000, numbered
copies of The Beatles "White Album", back in 1968. Does that mean the
other 100,000 of us, some of whom didn't buy it until a month later,
purchased a "re-issue" copy of it? Of course not.....
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 12:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
Over the years, I have surely come across at least 50 different stock
copies of this 45. I think I've only seen two that were of the WB-
distributed variety, while the other 48 were a 100% Casablanca-as-an-
indie-label 45 pressing. This change in distribution happened very early
on, during this 45's current chart run.
Isn't it really just common sense to conclude that *any* Casablanca 0108
45 copy pressed up during its late 1974 run as a Top 40 hit, whether WB-
distributed or not, qualifies as a legitimate, "original" pressing? This song
debuted in BB on 9/21/74. It didn't peak until 11/23. How can a 45 copy
pressed up independently, by Casablanca on, let's say, 10/25/74, be
considered a "re-issue?" It isn't. In collector circles, the term "re-issue"
means a subsequent 45 release, *after" a song has ended its hit run, and
has fallen off the charts. If Ed happened to provide us with a 45 timing
from a non-WB distributed 45, should both Pat and all of us disregard
Ed's report? Of course not.
Same criteria for LPs. Therefore, I totally support Abagon's assertion that
his "Hollywood Situation" Casablanca 7004 US LP copy is both 100%
original and authentic.
What if a person didn't happen to buy one of the first 1000, numbered
copies of The Beatles "White Album", back in 1968. Does that mean the
other 100,000 of us, some of whom didn't buy it until a month later,
purchased a "re-issue" copy of it? Of course not..... |
|
|
Sorry, jimct, but I strongly disagree that the term "re-issue" can/should only apply to a record AFTER it has ended its chart run (if it even hit the charts at all). And in this case, did I say that either the later indie-distributed 45 or LP by the Hudson Brothers didn't come out sometime during their respective chart runs??? No. (And in fact, I acknowledge that the changeover likely did occur while one or both were on the charts, just as you stated. I also agree that the changeover in distribution occurred not long after both the 45 & LP were first issued, and therefore, WB-distributed originals of either are much rarer.) My only point was that there is an earlier pressing of the LP than the one abagon owns, which may or may not contain a different version of "So You Are a Star", and either way, that info would be relevant to the database. (Again, I don't claim to own either version of that album, so for all I know, first pressings may very well be identical.) I didn't mean to imply that the info abagon gave didn't belong as well - obviously, that would be a given (or so I assumed, at the time I typed my previous post), after TimNeely spelled it out re: the 45 in '08. After all, if both 45 pressings belong (and I agree that they do), then both LPs should, too, right???
Again, I know I'm in the minority on this board, as I'm not one of the "45 purists" here - but if you folks are going to scrutinize all of the different 45 pressings of specific songs (and I'm impressed by just how often you guys do come up w/ different versions when comparing your 45 collections), why not the LPs as well??? That info is just as important, as the record labels made changes to them just as often. Now, as for abagon's argument about what's found in Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Albums book, as I recently pointed out in a different thread regarding Bruce Hornsby & the Range's debut album from 1986, The Way it Is, you can't rely entirely on what only Whitburn's books say, as they often don't tell the whole story - especially when it comes to albums. (FYI: I've contributed lists of errors/omissions to his books in the past.) In other words, when changes occurred w/ albums during their chart run, for whatever reason, those changes have been rarely spelled out in Whitburn's books, sometimes even when Billboard itself acknowledged those changes on their charts (again, see Bruce Hornsby)! Did that also happen w/ the Hudson Brothers??? Probably not, as I don't doubt that the re-issue on Casablanca 7004 was already on store shelves by the time the album debuted in the 12/07/74 issue of Billboard, but frankly, I don't feel it's relevant to Pat's database whether the original WB-distributed version actually charted or not - only the acknowledgment of its existence, and any info that can be obtained from those originals as it relates to "So You Are a Star" (since that version of the album WAS available during the song's chart run - and ironically, it's the original WB-distributed version of the single on Casablanca 0108 that Whitburn states made the "Hot 100", which I certainly believe was at least initially true, considering that occurred on 09/21/74, some two-and-a-half months earlier than the album)...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Yah Shure
MusicFan
Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 1:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My Warner-issued promo copy of the Hollywood Situation LP (NB 9008) has the pink-and-black Warner promo sticker on the cover. The labels also state "Promotion" "Not For Sale". The printed and actual times of "So You Are A Star" match abagon's 3:45 findings.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 1:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
80smusicfreak, first off, aren't you in the wrong decade? :)
I know you disagree with what "re-issue" means. That was obvious from
your previous post. I know there is no absolute right or wrong answer. But
we are both on Pat's board right now. And as a major contributor to it, I've
gotten a good feel over the years, for both Pat's philosophies and comfort
level about old releases, and what he likes to note in his db.
80smusicfreak, you know a lot about music. I respect that. That
Casablanca discography must have taken you forever to prepare. I'm glad
for you that it still gets so many 'Net hits, seeing it was done so long ago.
But one thing that never stops, for anyone, is the world of business. It
impacts music, and its product releases. Constantly. Labels start up.
Labels go bankrupt. Labels get sold. Labels merge. Or labels start up a
distribution deal. Or end one.
But the Hudson Brothers situation was *not* something, such as a banned
LP cover. Or a album re-release, in the sense of different tracks being
added/deleted. Or even a change of LP title, to now reflect a big hit song
included on it. In this case, both the different LP #'s and pressing
variations were 100% generated by Casablanca and WB simply ending their
joint business agreement. Period.
80smusicfreak, I'm not saying that these differences in catalog # info
aren't worth noting, somewhere, for the historical record, for those
curious about such "label bookkeeping matters." But Pat's board has
always had a much narrower focus. He prefers to focus on the songs
themselves. I'm just saying that, from a musical standpoint, the LP
Abagon owns is a clone of the WB-associated LP pressings. So, from a Top
40 Music On CD standpoint, there's nothing different to point out, "within
the grooves." So, for our purposes here, it's basically a wash.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
80smusicfreak
MusicFan
Joined: 14 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 4:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
jimct wrote:
| 80smusicfreak, first off, aren't you in the wrong decade? :) |
|
|
Well, I know I was when I attended my last concert about two weeks ago, when I had 4th-row seats to see the four original members of The (not-so-Young) Rascals down in Boston - and got to meet them all (albeit briefly) after the show. :-) If you haven't heard, thanks to Steven Van Zandt, despite some major personal issues that still exist between them, they've re-formed for the first time in over 40 years, and are currently promoting their "Once Upon a Dream" production/tour. Don't know exactly where you are in CT, but you can still catch them when they hit the Mohegan Sun on August 30 - highly recommended (runs a full two hours, and includes numerous film clips/interviews w/ the band members between the 28(!) songs they perform, detailing the history of the group)...
Quote:
| But the Hudson Brothers situation... |
|
|
Ha - pun intended, right??? ;-)
So if a label changes its distribution, the rules say only singles can be changed at that time (as w/ "So You Are a Star"), but not albums, too??? Okay, I admit I didn't know that. Sure, TimNeely did say in his post five years ago that "it's possible that there is overlap" between the two different 45 pressings of "So You Are a Star", but so far, no one here has proven that there was. I guess I'm inclined to believe that the change in the distribution/catalog no. of the 45s was simultaneous w/ the length change, as TimNeely's post strongly suggests. But if somebody can provide evidence of overlap on this one, then I stand corrected. And maybe that's why I'm a bit confused about this, as your first two posts in this thread from 06 May 2006 and 28 May 2008 DO NOT SPECIFY which versions (WB- vs. indie-distributed or "0108" vs. "801" catalog nos.) you have among the various stock & promo copies of this 45 in your collection! So, care to clarify for the entire class here??? :-)
As for the LP, I don't dispute that abagon's findings on the later pressings - which feature the "long version" of "So You Are a Star", just as the original WB-distributed 45s did - were a sign that any changes to the LP were much less likely. And thanks to Yah Shure's post, yes, I guess we now know that the song in question apparently wasn't changed, but I wasn't willing to make any assumptions...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4219
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 5:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So how about this... Since no one is disputing that the Hudson Brothers' Hollywood Situation LP, regardless of label, was available for sale to the public at the time "So You Are a Star" was a hit, how about we go with Abagon's 3:45 LP run time for the song (looks like Pat has already added that info to the database) and then if someone else steps forward with an earlier LP pressing containing a different version, we'll ask Pat to add that info to the database as well?
Fair enough?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jimct
MusicFan
Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
|
| Posted: 10 July 2013 at 7:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
80smusicfreak, this is gonna have to be my last go round here on this
topic. To be honest, I'm not even sure what we are disagreeing about. But
your knickers are sure in a twist about something!
In my last post, I tried to be civil, cordial, respectful and considerate of
your point of view. But it didn't seem to relax you too much. (sigh....) It's
only a music discussion forum, right? :) Maybe you're just up for a good
argument? (Personally, I'd rather have used this time to provide Pat
timings for 25 more Top 10 hits from 1964. But it wasn't to be.) You are
always just so so so so so passionate! Casablanca is obviously a "hot
button topic" for you. (And, yes, I already have my tickets to the 8/30 CT
Rascals show. Thanks for asking! :) )
You've brought up the Tim Neely post upthread, on numerous occasions,
in recent posts. Why? Tim has done amazing work on his Goldmine
reference books. I use them all the time. Personally, I'm always happy
when I see Tim post here. But I understand Tim's post perfectly. He is
exactly right, in every word he says. But why do you keep pointing us back
to it, again and again and again? What is it about Tim's post that you seem
to be *so* sure that all the rest of us here are missing? His gist:
WB/Casablanca 0108 promos: all 3:45. WB/Casablanca 0108 stock 45s: all
3:45. Casablanca indie 801 promos: 3:45 & 2:45. Casablanca indie 801
stock 45s: 2:45. Got it all. A long time ago.
Why is this potential "overlap" issue of such vital importance to you? So
what if there was overlap. So what if there wasn't overlap. What does
overlap affect so badly, to have you be so fixated on it? Besides, we have
monumental evidence that pressing plants are instructed to use up "old
label stock" before switching to the new. It's just good business. Why
couldn't that be possible here? What's your point?
80smusicfreak, here are my apparently long-awaited (to you), elusive
stock and promo 45 copy details. It's just that we here on the board
weren't providing quite the level of 45 detail, way back in 2006. I'm sorry.
I'll now attempt to make it up to you:
Stock copy: (Casablanca indie 45 release)
-Hudson Brothers--"So You Are A Star" (Casablanca 801) (stereo)
(deadwax info "NB-801-A-S SHORT VER") (listed time 3:45; actual time
2:46)
**As I mentioned upthread, my original Casablanca/WB 0108 stock 45
copy, bought back in 1974, was stolen from my station's lockup section in
1986. So how could I be expected to provide its details here, back in '08,
when it was stolen 22 years earlier, and I hadn't yet acquired a
replacement stock copy yet?**
Promo copy: (Casablanca/WB release)
-Hudson Brothers--"So You Are A Star" (Casablanca 0108) (stereo)
(deadwax info "SCN-102-S-1B NES-0108-S") (listed & actual time 3:45)
-Hudson Brothers--"So You Are A Star" (Casablanca 0108) (mono)
(deadwax info "NES-0108 SCN-0102-1B) (listed & actual time 3:45)
Promo copy: (Casablanca indie 45 release)
-Hudson Brothers--"So You Are A Star" (Casablanca 801) (stereo)
(deadwax info "NB-801-A-S LONG VER-1B") (listed time 3:45; actual time
3:44)
-Hudson Brothers--"So You Are A Star" (Casablanca 801) (mono)
(deadwax info "NB-801-A-M SHORT VER-1B") (listed time 2:45; actual
time 2:46)
Pat *only* uses LP and 45 details to compare/contrast against his db CD
versions. As a vehicle to augment his db's CD results. The CDs are what
this operation is 98% about - not vinyl.
80smusicfreak, to me, your primary interests lie in vinyl 45/LP label
catalog notations. As proven by your previous Casablanca discography
task. You have an intense curiosity for it. It's obvious. But like I
suggested earlier, I view Pat's forum as *clearly* the wrong place for you
to be dragging us through all this "vinyl mega-menusha." But you
insisted. So I went another round with you.....
Just know that I have tried my best to address each and every concern you
have voiced. Honestly, I now view my efforts tonight as a complete waste
of time and energy. Perhaps you got something out of the exercise......
Edited by jimct on 10 July 2013 at 7:24pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: Hudson Brothers - "So You Are A Star"
