"Smoke on the Water" - Deep Purple

Does it fade early on the 45 or does it just run faster?

I already have both the live version and studio version edits on CD, but I thought this image of "Smoke On The Water" on an import Capitol was interesting.

Smoke On The Water - Capitol import 45

How would Capitol have a Warner Bros. track?

MCT1, I haven't researched this, but while Capitol in the U.S. always had the "first crack" to release product from the EMI/Parlophone European operation, they often pass on that option, as they famously did in 1963, by passing on releasing several 1963 Beatles hit U.K. singles. Band management is then free to try to find a U.S. distribution deal, with any interested label, sometimes on a song-by-song basis, or sometimes by entering into a more long-term U.S. deal. Cosby and WB had had a good working relationship for years, as evidenced by both his hit mid 60's comedy albums, and his big 1967 hit single, "Little Ole Man", all on WB. But right around this time, Cosby wanted to support some long-time friends of his, and become the prime investor in a minority-owned, small Philly-area label. I don't know if Cosby's WB deal was up at this exact time, but I do believe WB was very cooperative with Cosby during his new label venture, which I'm sure Cosby very much appreciated. So, when the Tetragrammaton venture was being shut down in 1969, and with the label still owning the U.S. rights to one band still considered "of value" to other U.S. labels, Deep Purple, I think it is reasonable to assume that Cosby probably chose to contact folks he knew about it, obviously at WB, to make them a fair U.S. deal for Deep Purple's future U.S. rights, going forward. I'm sure any revenue he got from it probably helped him retire/settle any leftover financial loose ends from the Tetragrammaton operation, which almost certainly had debts by the end. Please, anybody with more solid knowledge here, please chime in - thanks.

Edited by jimct

There was a really interesting article a few issues back in the record collectors' magazine Goldmine describing all of the behind the scenes manuevering to find a U.S. record deal for the Beatles after Capitol had turned them down, and the fight that ensued over the group's early material once Capitol had finally decided to pick them up. The article was written by Beatles expert and author Bruce Spizer (who I believe is also an attorney in his "day job"). A few things that caught my attention:

--At the time, Capitol apparently had a lot of automony in deciding whether it would pick up an artist on a U.K. EMI label for American release. In fact, in cases where they didn't, EMI would sometimes actually try to help the artist secure a deal with another U.S. label, which is what happened in the Beatles' case. In these situations, the parent EMI company was effectively acting in competition with its American subsidiary.

--Vee-Jay lost the rights to the Beatles in the summer of 1963 when it failed to pay EMI royalties on Beatles records it had sold. As the Beatles' early releases had not sold well, the amount of money in question was not significant, although it was part of a larger payment that Vee-Jay owned to EMI on a number of U.K. artists that it had licensed. Spizer notes that EMI also owned money to Vee-Jay at the time, and had the financially troubled Vee-Jay been in a position to challenge EMI's termination of the contract (or, more to the point, had they seen any value in doing so) they may have been able to work something out to keep the Beatles' rights.       

--When Beatlemania hit in early 1964, Vee-Jay decided to release Beatles recordings from the tapes they had in their possession, even though their legal counsel advised them that they did not have a strong claim over those recordings (even if Capitol's termination of the contract was perhaps a bit underhanded, it was true that Vee-Jay hadn't paid royalties when they were due) and would probably lose any legal battle initiated by Capitol or EMI. To buy a little time before the inevitable court injunction, Vee-Jay told its key corporate officers to stay out of the office in the days following the release of the first Vee-Jay Beatles record, so that Capitol and EMI would have a hard time finding anyone to serve papers on.

Though not discussed in the article, there were a number of British Invasion-era bands who were on EMI-owned labels in the U.K. but were not on Capitol in the U.S. The Hollies, the Yardbirds, the Dave Clark Five, Gerry & the Pacemakers, and The Animals are all examples, though I'm not sure whether Capitol rejected all of them or if in at least some cases there is another explanation. (In another twist to this, Capitol's Canadian division apparently made its own decisions, and most of the above artists *were* on Capitol in Canada. Capitol also had the Beatles in Canada right from the beginning.) You'd think that by the time Deep Purple came along, they would have learned their lesson, but maybe not....

To Jim's comments about the Bill Cosby connection with Warner Bros., I hadn't thought of that, but I'll bet you're exactly right. It's fun to think how, if things had just gone a little differently, Deep Purple could have been on Capitol in the U.S. (or maybe Harvest, once it started up), or perhaps even Polydor or Atco. Without Cosby's intervention, I guess they could have ended up anywhere after 1969.

You are correct, Gordon. See:

https://www.discogs.com/Deep-Purple-Smoke-On-The-Water/relea se/10538448

The record label simply indicates (Edited Version) on both sides, but a closer inspection shows that the 4:34 "Edited Version" is taken from the live album Made In Japan.