Righteous Brothers-"Ebb Tide"
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=4663
Printed Date: 16 June 2025 at 9:12am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Righteous Brothers-"Ebb Tide"
Posted By: jimct
Subject: Righteous Brothers-"Ebb Tide"
Date Posted: 27 February 2009 at 8:40pm
| My commercial 45, confirmed as Philles 130, has a listed time of (2:46), but an actual time of (2:49). |
Replies:
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 14 May 2014 at 6:02pm
|
Pat:
In the database, all stereo hit recording appearances of The Righteous Brothers' "Ebb Tide" are shown with an "LP version" comment, while all mono entries have a "with 45 version reverb" description. Is reverb the only difference between the two mixes (other than the obvious left/right channel panning)? If so, then perhaps the "LP version" comment should be modified to read "with LP version reverb"? Or is there something else regarding the mono CD appearances specifically preventing them from otherwise receiving a full-fledged "45 version" designation? |
Posted By: Pat Downey
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 7:04am
| I am not aware of any other difference between the 45 and LP version of Ebb Tide other than the reverb. The reason I entered the comment as "with 45 version reverb" is to tip off anyone interested in knowing what the 45 vs LP difference is since it is easily overlooked. Adding a comment regarding LP version reverb would be duplicitous. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 8:58am
|
Fair enough, Pat. Although haven't you more typically used "45 mix"
and "LP mix" comments in other cases like this where the only difference is reverb? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 9:24am
|
I love the database and all of the work that has been put into it by Pat and all of the forum contributors. But there are inconsistencies, like this one, which leave the reader to draw his own conclusions. It is confusing to see the comment "with 45 version reverb" for mono copies, while stereo copies say "LP version." I do understand Pat's reasoning for wanting to explain the difference, but wouldn't it be better to include that information in the song notes, and just leave the mono copies labeled as "45 version"? ------------- 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: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 11:03am
|
While I agree that the database comments for "Ebb Tide" as currently
written may be a bit confusing for the reason Aaron stated, I also think it's probably too late in the game to start switching to using 45/LP "version" designations to describe a reverb difference given that Pat has been tagging these cases with 45/LP "mix" comments up to this point. Even though opinions differ here on this particular policy, I think it's more important to remain consistent across the board with whatever longstanding policies have been in place. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 11:34am
|
Are you sure he uses only "45/LP mix" in cases where the reverb is
different? If that were true, then shouldn't the designator for this song be "LP mix"? That's the problem, Todd. There doesn't seem to be consistency from song to song with regards to how it's labeled in the database. It's the age old debate that we've had about "length" vs "version" on songs that are simply early fades. Sometimes it's "length" and sometimes it's "version," and it causes us to do further investigation to find out why. ------------- 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: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 15 May 2014 at 12:24pm
To answer your first question, no, I'm not 100% certain but that's the conclusion I've drawn from previous cases. If I'm wrong, perhaps Pat can set the record straight once and for all. Until then, given my current understanding of the policy in place, I personally think "45 mix" and "LP mix" would be the more appropriate tags in this particular instance. |
aaronk wrote: