"Get Dancin’" - Disco Tex...
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=680
Printed Date: 10 May 2025 at 3:52am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Get Dancin’" - Disco Tex...
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Subject: "Get Dancin’" - Disco Tex...
Date Posted: 26 January 2006 at 10:06pm
|
Pat:
Edtop40 says he has a Disco Tex & The Sex-O-Lettes "Get Dancin'" 45 that runs 3:12 and is an early fade of the longer 45 version running 3:52 that has most often surfaced on CD. That being said, can we assume then that the CDs listed in the database where the song runs 3:14 in length should contain the comment: (short 45 version) instead of (45 version faded :34 early)? |
Replies:
Posted By: Grant
Date Posted: 28 January 2006 at 8:56pm
| Well, while we're on the subject, in 1975, my local radio station played a much longer version that combined the elements of both sides of the commercial 45. I have never heard about it since then. What I had to do is recreate a facsimile of it the best I could from that 45. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 16 October 2007 at 10:40pm
| The database still has the "faded early" comment next to the short 45 version on CD; however, the notes next to the song title state that some copies run (3:12). |
Posted By: Pat Downey
Date Posted: 17 October 2007 at 8:05pm
| Since there are 3 different 45 pressings of "Get Dancing" which are all just early fades of the longest 45 pressing, I felt it was clearer just to state the various 45 running times by the song title rather than state 45 length #1, 45 length #2 and 45 length #3 by each cd appearance. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 17 October 2007 at 11:40pm
|
While I can see your point, Pat, it was confusing to me as a reader. In all other cases where you use the term "faded early," it always means that I'm not getting the correct version. I always try to avoid CDs that say "faded early." While it is helpful to have the times listed by the song title, I didn't want to assume that a CD with the same run time as the 45 has the correct version. Plenty of cases have emerged where the run times were the same (or very close) between the 45 and CD, and the CD turned out to be a "neither."
Perhaps the comments could be revised to read "one of three 45 versions." That way, I would know that the CD I was getting has one of the correct 45 versions. |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 18 October 2007 at 5:20am
|
Ok,
Here's a question, the 45's that run 3:12, do they fade quickly where he says "Thank you very much"? I seem to remember hearing something similiar in 1975 on the radio. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 18 December 2007 at 2:21am
|
eriejwg, sorry it took a while to answer your question. I actually still have some questions of my own.
First, my only CD copy is of the (3:50) version on Music Express. At about (3:08) on this version IS the "thank you very much" part. Based on what Pat says above, the (3:12) 45s would fade at this point, exactly as you remember. That said, I have in front of me a promo copy with a (3:53) printed time (actual 3:52) that says "Special Edit" CH-3004-DJ. This is NOT the same edit that appears on my compilation CD. In fact, this copy ALSO fades out at the "thank you very much" part; however, that part starts around (3:42) on this version. It is very possible that this "Special Edit" can be edited from the LP version, and it might even be an early fade of the LP. I'll have to track down a copy of the LP version to be able to compare. Finally, I would like to point out that the database currently has an "LP version" designation for two different CDs: one runs (4:10) and the other runs (4:27). Does anyone know which one is the vinyl LP's run time? |
Posted By: Pat Downey
Date Posted: 18 December 2007 at 8:49pm
|
To explain why there are different timings for the LP version of Get Dancin', this is due to the fact that the tracks on the vinyl LP were segued together with lots of audience applause interspersed and the compilers of the two cd's that contain the LP version, elected to index the beginning and ending of Get Dancin' differently. If I were indexing this track, I would assign a running time of (4:10) to the vinyl LP version.
Ed, if you get to read this, what is the stated time of your short 45 version Of Get Dancin' and what is the matrix number? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 December 2007 at 12:02am
| Thank you, Pat. That makes sense! |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 05 January 2010 at 5:31pm
|
Hello All,
Reviving this older topic. I've been trying to fill in missing hits to my mp3 library and finally got around to this one. I had to refresh my memory as to what version i wanted, so i checked my LP and remembered i don't like the added "stadium audience" noise they added to the LP. So i checked all my cd's and i didn't have one with the 45 version, only the "neither" which is an edit of the LP mix. But i did recall i had the song on a K-tel album, one of the few that actually had a quality vinyl pressing, and very good sound (only 5 or 6 tracks per side.) Being sure they must have used the 45 version, I dubbed it from there. But, I noticed it was running quite a long time. Turned out this album has the 45 mix, but it runs the full length to 7:20. I was wondering, was there ever a 12" single for this (i thought '75 was a little early for those). So i was wondering if this version ever appeared anywhere else. If i am reading the notes above correctly, the 2nd half if this version was put on the 45 as part 2? Interesting. So i can't help but wonder, what this doin' 'ere? Well, for the curious, the K-tel album is merely called "Superhits By the Superstars" from 1975, and is a 2-record set. The catalog # is TU 2450. some folks here may have it and not even realize, as i didn't. PS - in my looking up info on this song and its production, seeing Bob Crewe's name didn't surprise me. Seeing Kenny Nolan's name did. Co-wrote, and also provided vocals! Cool. -MM |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 13 July 2010 at 8:17pm
|
Just got in a promo 45 for this. Odd that the PLUG side or hit side on this promo 45 is mono, while Part II on the flip side is stereo.
CH-3004-AM is the deadwax. |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 13 July 2010 at 9:05pm
|
pat....sorry it took a year and a half to get back to regarding your question!!!.....the stated run time is 3:56 and the info on the run out groove is "ch-3004-as x kendun a" ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Pat Downey
Date Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:44am
| Ed is that time of (3:56) the stated time of the "short version" of this 45 that Todd reports you stating has a run time of (3:12)? I am still trying to sort out the facts surrounding this (3:12) version. |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:58am
|
i'll review the 45 again tonight when i get home and post my findings.... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 15 July 2010 at 4:39pm
|
my commercial 45 issued as chelsea 3004 states the run time on the label as 3:56 but actually runs 3:14, not 3:12 as i previously had reported to todd......the song is identical to the version from the "mega hits" cd but faded out to the 3:14 mark.....it does NOT state any version ie:short version on the label.......i hope this helps.......please note the run out groove info listed above.......... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 15 July 2010 at 6:55pm
|
Mark,
What you have on that K-Tel LP must be the one i've been looking for all these years. But, the one I am looking foe has the crowd noise. ------------- |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 20 July 2010 at 4:53pm
|
Hi again,
Well, the long version does have the crowd noise that the 45 has, it's the 45 mix, just the whole thing. It does not have the "extra" dense large-audience noise they dubbed over the whole LP. Hits Man; be happy to send a wav file of that if you like. I dubbed it from the LP awhile back. Send me a PM if you'd like. -MM |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 20 July 2010 at 7:28pm
| Anyone know why the promo 45 I picked up is in mono? Was the commercial 45 mono too? |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 30 May 2011 at 6:35pm
|
commercial 45 is in stereo... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Bill Cahill
Date Posted: 08 February 2012 at 5:58pm
| I finally picked up the promo copy of Get Dancin "Special DJ edit". Side one is mono and listed as "Get Dancin". Side two is stereo but listed as "Get Dancing Part II". However it's the SAME RECORDING as the mono A side. My guess is that both sides are in reality "Get Dancin Part II", and Chelsea was looking to extend airplay so they sent radio the stock B side version as "Special DJ edit". But I don't have a stock copy to compare. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 9:46am
|
All CD copies I have of this song with the 45 version have a noticeable hum in at least one of the channels (some CDs have hum in both channels). Are there any discs that don't have the hum? I checked the following:
(S) (3:54) Priority 7973 Mega-Hits Dance Classics Volume 3 (long 45 version) (S) (3:52) Rhino 71094 Disco Hits Volume 1 (long 45 version) (S) (3:50) K-Tel 3624 Music Express (long 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: Steve Carras
Date Posted: 09 February 2013 at 12:58pm
|
The DJ edit combined parts of Part 1 and 2!!! ------------- You know you're really older when you think that younger singer Jesse McCartney's related in anyway to former Beatle Paul McCartney. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 09 February 2013 at 10:50pm
I'd love to find that DJ edit! My local radio station used to play it and I haven't found it since. The 45 I have has the second part on the flipside, so I had to edit them together. ------------- |
Steve Carras wrote:Posted By: Steve Carras
Date Posted: 21 February 2017 at 2:07am
And I'm still trying to find that on SoulSeek..hey, Hykker (who sent me that wonderful Green Eyed Lady edit,) or anybody else, does anybody have that particular Get Dancin' edit as am mp3 to send? The hit single is missing the fun parts on Part 2 1) earlier after about a minute and a half when the girls, as if to say, "f you", say "Rock YOU!" 2) near the end when Disco Tex says Rock 'n' Roll is here to say and his Sex-o-:ettes go,in unison HEY! and the orchestra stops.. ------------- You know you're really older when you think that younger singer Jesse McCartney's related in anyway to former Beatle Paul McCartney. |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 21 February 2017 at 2:53pm
|
Well Steve, I've got a mint dub of the entire unedited recording I think it's about (7:30).
I assume the DJ edit can be created from it. This is the hit mix not the weird LP version. MM |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 21 February 2017 at 3:13pm
|
I'd like a copy of your dub, Mark, if you don't mind, sir. :) ------------- 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: MMathews
Date Posted: 21 February 2017 at 11:33pm
| No prob, on its way now, Aaron. MM |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 22 February 2017 at 10:28am
|
This is it! The version i've been looking for the last
42 years! ------------- |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 22 February 2017 at 10:50am
| I'd love a copy of the DJ edit too. |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 22 February 2017 at 3:51pm
|
Well, thanks to Youtube I at least solved the mystery of where the full-length Pt.1+Pt 2 (7:20) version appeared on vinyl in the 70's.
That was the LP version in other countries. And according to one poster there was "rare promo" (I assume 12") that contained the full version. There was no picture of it though, so I can't verify that. It should have been the LP version here, but instead they shortened it and added the irritating stadium crowd cheering which made an already over-busy recording a sonic mess. MM |
Posted By: Steve Carras
Date Posted: 22 February 2017 at 8:15pm
Me,too,please..! ------------- You know you're really older when you think that younger singer Jesse McCartney's related in anyway to former Beatle Paul McCartney. |
Posted By: crapfromthepast
Date Posted: 22 February 2017 at 8:45pm
|
Yeah, me too, please... ------------- There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one http://www.crapfromthepast.com" rel="nofollow - Crap From The Past . |