|
Hudson Brothers - "So You Are A Star" |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | ||
abagon 
Music Fan 
Joined: 01 March 2008 Location: Japan Status: Offline Points: 0 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 10 July 2013 at 9:06am |
|
|
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 |
||
 |
||
|
jimct
Music Fan
Joined: 07 April 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 10:34am |
|
|
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..... |
||
|
||
|
80smusicfreak
Music Fan
Joined: 14 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 12:57pm |
|
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)... |
||
|
||
|
Yah Shure
Music Fan
Joined: 11 December 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 1:18pm |
|
|
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.
|
||
|
||
|
jimct
Music Fan
Joined: 07 April 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 1:38pm |
|
|
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. |
||
|
||
|
80smusicfreak
Music Fan
Joined: 14 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 4:46pm |
|
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)...
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... |
||
|
||
|
Todd Ireland
Music Fan
Joined: 16 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 5:19pm |
|
|
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? |
||
|
||
|
jimct
Music Fan
Joined: 07 April 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 7:06pm |
|
|
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 |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
| Tweet |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
jimct wrote: