Carpenters-"I Need To Be In Love"
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3261
Printed Date: 29 April 2025 at 11:56pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Carpenters-"I Need To Be In Love"
Posted By: jimct
Subject: Carpenters-"I Need To Be In Love"
Date Posted: 07 April 2008 at 12:44pm
| My commercial 45 has a listed time of (3:25), but an actual time of (3:30). |
Replies:
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 07 April 2008 at 5:43pm
| Jim, the stereo DJ 45 also lists 3:25, but runs 3:30. Unlike the commercial 45, this one is in glorious <cough, cough> CSG stereo. I wonder if Richard might consider a The Carpenters: The CSG Mixes project ;) ;) |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 08 April 2008 at 11:02am
|
what does "CSG" stand for?
------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: jimct
Date Posted: 08 April 2008 at 11:23am
| Ed, my friend, I'm no audiophile, but CSG stood for "Compatible Stereo Generator," and was known in audio circles as the "Haeco-CSG" process. A&M, Atlantic & WB were the primary "record label clients" of this processing, employed from the late 60's, and on through much of the early-to-mid 70's. As stereo stock 45s began to be made, many kids still had those cheap, portable mono turntables. The thinking here was to try to make these "new" stereo 45s "compatible for both mono & stereo turntables", by running the master audio through this CSG process. This was done to try to save the record labels the money, time & trouble that was required to produce a specific mono master for a 45, while still supposedly providing the "full range of sound" on the kids' cheap record players. It was roundly criticized by most audiophiles, who thought the music's sound clearly became distorted/altered going through the CSG audio process. CSG processing, thankfully, has long ago been abandoned. And audiophiles, please, feel free to jump in here - my info here is almost certainly incomplete! |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 08 April 2008 at 1:24pm
|
Here's another consideration: When a stereo record was heard in mono, especially on the AM top-40 stations or on mono FM radios in the late '60s-early '70s, the center channel material was louder than the sounds that were hard left or right in the stereo mix. The CSG process was an attempt to reduce the center, bringing it in balance with the hard left/right when heard in mono. In theory, this seemed like a good idea, but in reality, while the mono playback sounded okay, the stereo playback did not sound very good.
By 1973-76, A & M had pretty much relegated CSG to the stereo side of DJ 45s. If you were to hold a stock and promo 45 of "I Need To Be In Love" next to each other, you'd notice a huge difference in the groove pattern, with the CSG-processed DJ looking much "busier" than the stock copy. In listening to both in stereo, the stock 45 would have a much fuller, more natural-sounding stereo mix than the CSG stereo. I suppose that an argument could be made that if a top-40 hit was released in promo form as a CSG-processed stereo 45, that should be considered to be the "radio version" mix, but I'm not going down that road. |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 08 April 2008 at 4:53pm
That doesn't make much sense. You'd think AM stations could just play the mono side, and not have to worry about summing errors. By the early 70s many AM stations had installed stereo cartridges in their turntables & summed them to mono, supposedly minimizing the effect. I don't think I have any A&M 45s in both promo and stock (most likely one or the other), but I'll have to give a listen. I'm one who's usually pretty sensitive to processing artifacts, but I can't say I ever noticed anything bad-sounding about CSG-processed records, the one exception that comes to mind being "See" by the Rascals, which I always attributed to the song just being mixed that way intentionally. |
Yah Shure wrote:Posted By: Roscoe
Date Posted: 08 April 2008 at 6:32pm
| Did the 45 of "Please Mr. Postman" use CSG? I believe it was a different mix than the LP version, but that 45 always had a strange, lo-fi sound, especially for a mid-70s recording. The LP version does not have that lo-fi sound. |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 08 April 2008 at 7:52pm
|
Hykker, AM stations usually did play the mono side... until the cue burn necessitated a flip. It was the FM stereo listeners, listening in stereo - the very reason for the stereo DJ 45 in the first place - who ended up hearing a weird-sounding, altered stereo mix.
The mono DJ 45 of "See" doesn't sound great, either; it's quite harsh, with not much bottom end. Roscoe, yes, the "Please Mr. Postman" promo 45 got the CSG treatment. I don't have a stock copy of that one, so I can't say whether or not they got the same treatment. The stock stereo CSGs on A & M I have were from 1970 (Miguel Rios, Free) with the latest being a '72 Shawn Phillips Christmas 45. A & M used conventional stereo for the majority of the label's promo 45s; The Carpenters seem to be the one act that utilized CSG the most. Here's what I found from those that were handy: CSG-Processed (on the stereo side) DJ 45s: 1446 "Yesterday Once More" 1468 "Top Of The World" 1646 "Please Mr. Postman" 1721 "Solitaire" 1800 "There's A Kind Of Hush" 1828 "I Need To Be In Love" 1859 "Goofus" 1940 "All You Get From Love Is A Love Song" (both the small-hole and normal-sized hole DJ 45s) Conventional (Non-CSG-Processed) stereo DJ 45s: 1351 "It's Going To Take Some Time" 1521 "I Won't Last A Day Without You" 1677 "Only Yesterday" 2008 "Sweet Sweet Smile" |
Posted By: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 09 April 2008 at 12:04am
|
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Free's single mix of "All Right Now" Haeco-CSG processed on the A&M commercial 45, but NOT CSG processed on the stereo side of the DJ edit-of-single-mix 45?
Andy |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 09 April 2008 at 6:07am
|
Andy, I don't have the 4:14 DJ 45 of A & M 1206. My copy is the mono/mono edit with the "2:70" stated running time (a warm-up, perhaps, to the 2:98 stated time on the group's 1973 non-charter "Wishing Well" [Island 1212].)
I also have the 1975 non-CSG stereo DJ 45 reissue (A & M 1720) from the Best Of Free LP with a stated time of 3:30. |
Posted By: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 09 April 2008 at 8:23am
|
Hi 'Yah Shure',
I don't believe there was a 4:14 DJ 45 of "All Right Now". There was only the '2:70' edit-of-the-single-mix (but I'm pretty sure there was a stereo/mono copy too [although my memory could be playing tricks on me]). The 1975 DJ 45 reissue was an edit of the LP mix, I believe. Could you please check for me? The single mix has a more energetic rhythm guitar riff & prominant cowbell, the LP mix has a simpler rhythm guitar part & a temple block. Andy |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 09 April 2008 at 5:19pm
|
Hi Andy,
The 1975 DJ 45 is, interestingly, the 45 mix with an actual time of 3:44. I don't have the Best Of Free LP, which leads me to ask: which version is on that LP? 
|
Posted By: Bill Cahill
Date Posted: 09 April 2008 at 6:38pm
|
I responded to this Free discussion by reviving the old Free All Right Now string. Check that out.
Bill |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 26 March 2011 at 10:33pm
| Back to Carpenters' "I Need to Be in Love"... Is the 45 version just an edit of the LP version? Or are there mix differences between the two that would make a 45 edit not possible? |
Posted By: Roscoe
Date Posted: 27 March 2011 at 6:55am
|
In addition to the first 13 seconds of intro being chopped
off the 45, there is a mix difference. The harp has been removed from the first few seconds of the 45 intro. The remainder of the song sounds like the same mix to me, but because of the intro difference the 45 cannot be recreated from the LP. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 28 March 2011 at 5:50am
| Thanks, Roscoe! |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 29 March 2011 at 12:41pm
| So as to make sure my understanding is correct, does the 45 version listed in the database match the 45? |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 08 June 2013 at 5:47am
|
yes and no.....it's the same version, but you'll need to
pitch up the 3:34 'kind of hush' cd version to run 3:30 and you'll effectively re-create the true vinyl 45.....one other note, literally....on the intro, the 45 has what sounds like lips or tongue hitting the oboe or flute, whatever wind instrument is on the 45...but the cd version from 'kind of a hush' it has it removed....could this be another of richard's obsession with perfection?....thanks brian for providing me with the file for comparison purposes years ago.... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Michaeldila
Date Posted: 28 April 2014 at 6:54pm
|
on the japanese 'singles box', the "i need to be in love" single version has the
first few seconds of the intro in mono, then quickly changes to stereo. it is like this on another cd as well (i'd have to dig out all my carpenters stuff to figure out which one though). the only cd source i have found that does NOT have this quick mono intro is the 1989 "a kind of hush" cd (which i believe was the first time richard remastered this lp). that cd also has the best sound for this (rare) single edit by far. did the original 45 have this mono/stereo intro? |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 29 April 2014 at 1:34pm
|
I just listened to the "Singles Box" version, and the intro not actually mono, Michael. It is narrower stereo during the first four seconds, and there's definitely some sort of edit at that point, but the piano is center and the flute is panned slightly to the left. If you widen the stereo on the song, the flute shifts far left while the piano stays center.
Still, I too would like to know if it's like this on the 45. |
Posted By: Kerry Jackson
Date Posted: 29 April 2014 at 2:48pm
|
I have 3 copies of the 45, the DJ Promo, a stock copy and the Memories 45. The promo has mono & stereo sides, but the stereo sure seems to be mono to me. Yah Shure mentioned above that it is in CSG stereo, and close inspection of the audio in Audition shows it to be mono.
The same is true for my other two stereo 45's. They are quite different from the A&M Records 25th Anniversary version of the song. The CD version shows to be stereo in Audition and has good separation when I listen to it. I also noticed the promo 45 is slightly faster than the other versions. But, to answer Brian's question, all of my 45's have what appears to be a mono intro. |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 29 April 2014 at 5:46pm
Like Kerry, I also have a mono/stereo DJ 45 (Monarch pressing) and a stereo stock 45 (Columbia Terre Haute pressing.) My findings mirror what Brian reports above: expanding the stereo image on the stock 45's first :04 moves the flutes left and the piano (harp?) pretty much stays put (even further expansion pushes the flute hard left and the piano decidedly to the right.) Kerry does have a point on the promo single, however: the stereo separation isn't immediately apparent during the first four seconds of the stereo side of the DJ 45, and expanding the stereo image doesn't audibly change that to any appreciable extent. But once the right channel is phase-shifted minus-90 degrees to mitigate the effects of the CSG encoding, it matches the stock 45's opening :04 narrow stereo image exactly. Expanding the stereo image after the phase is shifted yields the same results as the stock's flute-left, piano-center. But yeah, that is a stark contrast at the four-second mark, where the stereo image suddenly opens up wide. The Wizard Of Oz effect strikes again. |
Posted By: Michaeldila
Date Posted: 30 April 2014 at 2:50pm
|
so the 1989 remaster of 'a kind of hush' has the ONLY cd appearance of the
single version with the "fixed" opening (later versions of this lp on cd all contained the regular album version). pretty cool. |
Posted By: jimct
Date Posted: 30 April 2014 at 3:43pm
|
Michael, while I'm happy that you seem to be so pleased about your 1989
re-master CD's opening, the majority of us here on the board are interested in only what appeared on the originally-released, 1976 vinyl 45 and LP versions, "warts and all." I know I have no personal interest in having anything "fixed" on subsequent CDs. Having "remixed" details available to me about CDs in Pat's db is one of the main reasons I've been subscribing to it for years now. So I can steer clear of all of those CDs. Staying with this same mindset, since the numerous Richard Carpenter re- masters over the years were re-mixes that often added instrumentation not found on the original recordings, again, many of us on this board have either returned or re-sold our copies, once this fact was discovered, and have been in pursuit of the relatively few CD sources worldwide that omit all of Richard's 80s and 90s audio tinkering efforts, and feature *only* the original 45 and LP mixes. If you are interested, many old Carpenters' song posts offer detailed, further "remix" specifics, in addition to the complete domestic CD rundown of same found inside Pat's db. |
Posted By: Michaeldila
Date Posted: 01 May 2014 at 5:12pm
|
i'm sorry i ruffled your feathers, jim. i am brand new here and just trying to
"fit in". now i just feel chilly. i too am interested in original 45 versions..does that mean i should i not make a point about a remaster? again, sorry everyone. my intention was not to offend. |
Posted By: jimct
Date Posted: 01 May 2014 at 6:22pm
|
Michael, please allow me to extend you my warmest personal welcome. It
is always nice to have new participants. My feathers weren't ruffled in the least by your re-master post. You totally mis-read the intent of my reply. You just happened to pick the *one* group's remasters that have long garnered the most criticism on here - The Carpenters. Like you, many of us on here also love their music. Richard's re-masters were done with love, and with the intent of making their songs sound less hissy, and better sounding in the CD era. But, in doing so, Richard changed history, by adding elements. Then he re-filed them as the "go-to masters" in the A&M vaults, which meant they then appeared on all V/A comps, for a while. It took several years, and many complaints, before A&M stopped using his versions as the "master recordings". I have read that Richard was surprised at the amount of negative feedback his remasters had created, but now understands how many Carpenters fans preferred the original mixes - hiss and all - and is now fully on board putting those out. I know that you are brand new here. That was the entire reason for my earlier post. To try to assist you in fitting in. We are, by and large, a "very sick bunch of puppies" on here. I say that lovingly. And place myself near the top of the list. We are just not normal. We seemingly care about every little thing. We are fanatics. We disagree all the time. I hope you will post your opinions on here often. And I will look forward to reading them! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 01 May 2014 at 7:04pm
|
Yes, welcome aboard, Michael! Please keep posting, and I also look forward
to learn what you know. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 01 May 2014 at 8:24pm
| I echo Aaron's remarks, Michael! We're so glad to have you here. A warm welcome to you. And I'm just like you, Michael - I often like fixed versions! You're not alone. There's a version of "Nadia's Theme" on CD that fixes a glitch (click) that was on all tape masters, and I was one of the people that was glad the "fixed" remaster was reported here. A strange, flawed edit was made flawless, and I prefer it that way. And to answer your question, I think you can make points about remasters. It's all good knowledge and good info to share. |
Posted By: Michaeldila
Date Posted: 02 May 2014 at 7:17am
|
thank you guys, i'm happy to finally be here! edison, i understand what
you mean....i much prefer the 45 version of "i need to be in love" but i'm happy to hear a clean "fixed" opening (especially through earphones). i've spent many years trying to fill my music collection with 45 versions so i'm so glad i'm not the only nutcase! jim, i realize now that the carpenters are a touchy subject here, too. i'm a huge fan and i know the debate has raged for many years about all of richard's remastering. at first i was vehemently against all the reworking, but truth to tell, i now prefer 'most' of the newer versions. i don't know how it happened, but after being exposed for so long to the newer stuff, the original versions sound kinda flat to me now. for example, while i like the original versions of "superstar" and "rainy days", the newer versions of "it's gonna take some time" and "sing" -to me- have an extra punch to them. and the 1991 remaster of "we've only just begun" (especially on the 'love songs' cd) has an extra touch of reverb and separation (to my ears) that make me sway to that version. also, there's some totally new versions of a few songs on the japanese 'treasures' double cd from the eighties that blow the originals away (as far as clarity goes). the newer stuff tends to bring karen more to the front and i can't blame richard for that...but regarding the carpenters, it's sort of become like a giant, very confusing buffet where you pick what you want. i've found it best to just "jump into" the total insanity of their catalogue...so now i have al the original versions in one playlist and all the new remixes in another and i cover all my bases that way and not get a headache. thanks again, guys! |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 02 May 2014 at 9:52am
| I often prefer the single mixes/versions, but I go on a case-by-case basis. Like all the Jim Steinman produced/written songs - I like the unedited 7-minute-plus versions. As far as the Carpenters remasters, while I understand Richard's tinkering, I still prefer the originals. For instance, yesterday in my car, I heard "Goodbye to Love" with all the extra reverb on the voice, and it just sounded weird to me. I also have to admit I don't like the piano replacements Richard does, completely replacing the piano track with a different sounding piano. But fixing oddities like a mono-to-stereo intro (like your example), that I get. The "Nadia's Theme" fix I understand. I even took Al Stewart's "Midnight Rocks" and Manilow's "Could It Be Magic" and re-edited them to remove clicks (at editing points) that really bothered my ears. The editing technology in 1980 and 1975 just wasn't as good as it is now. I'm sure it wasn't the editor's intentions to add clicks to their new edits, so fixes on the originals (like these examples) I totally prefer. |