Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
Chat Board
 Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Subject Topic: Elton John - Little Jeannie Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1523
Posted: 22 July 2013 at 6:32pm | IP Logged Quote crapfromthepast

I found a copy of Elton John's Love Songs CD from W. Germany. (Rocket 811 312-2, no copyright date but possibly 1982?) It's got an odd track selection (everything is from the 1976-1982 time frame) and I can't really recommend the sound quality. I see it as more of a curiosity than anything else, sort of like the remixes on The Superior Sound Of Elton John.

It has an early fade of "Little Jeannie", with a fade from 3:28 to 3:48, and a posted time of 3:50.

Was there ever a 3:50 version of "Little Jeannie" released anywhere?

Edited by crapfromthepast on 30 July 2013 at 7:25am


__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
Back to Top View crapfromthepast's Profile Search for other posts by crapfromthepast Visit crapfromthepast's Homepage
 
jimct
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
Posted: 22 July 2013 at 7:22pm | IP Logged Quote jimct

Not in the US, Ron. My promo 45 has the same listed (5:18), actual (5:12)
stereo version on both sides. Deadwax "YOU CAN'T BEAT THAT", followed by
"MC 10219 - AM3". Both myself and our station played this song to death
back in mid-1980, off of the promo 45. We never got a shorter promo 45 in
for it.

This song also has a longer fade than most do. That's my guess why there
are a couple of slightly shorter, likely-faded slightly early, (5:10) length CDs
in the db. I also believe my promo is sped up just a tad, vs. the db CDs I've
heard, that run in the (5:15-5:16) range...

Edited by jimct on 22 July 2013 at 7:29pm
Back to Top View jimct's Profile Search for other posts by jimct
 
Brian W.
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2160
Posted: 22 July 2013 at 9:16pm | IP Logged Quote Brian W.

crapfromthepast wrote:
I found a copy of Elton John's Love Songs CD from
W. Germany. (Rocket 811 312-2, no copyright date but
possibly 1982?) It's got an odd track selection
(everything is from the 1976-1982 time frame) and I can't
really recommend the sound quality. I see it as more of
a curiosity than anything else, sort of like the remixes
on The Superior Sound.

It has an early fade of "Little Jeannie", with a fade
from 3:28 to 3:48, and a posted time of 3:50.

Was there ever a 3:50 version of "Little Jeannie"
released anywhere?

I've had "Love Songs" since the late 1980s. I'm almost positive that these are just early fades of the songs done specifically for that CD, as there are several of them on that disc, and none are edits, as far as I can tell -- just early fades. And it probably wasn't necessary. In the early years of the CD format, it was actually in the CD specs that you couldn't go longer than 65 minutes to a disc. They quickly found, of course, that up to 80 minutes is quite feasible, but that's technically not "spec."

But, yeah, "Love Songs" has HEAVY noise reduction. That's why that sound is a bit lackluster. The early Rocket Elton John CDs all suffered from that -- Breaking Hearts and A Single Man do as well. Fortunately they got over that. The original 80s Rocket CD pressings of 21 at 33, The Fox, and Jump Up! all sound very nice to my ears, better than the US versions. Very nice tonality.

Edited by Brian W. on 23 July 2013 at 7:24am
Back to Top View Brian W.'s Profile Search for other posts by Brian W.
 
Hykker
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1023
Posted: 23 July 2013 at 6:09am | IP Logged Quote Hykker

Brian W. wrote:
In the early years of the CD format, it
was in the actually CD specs that you couldn't go longer
than 65 minutes to a disc. They quickly found, of course,
that up to 80 minutes is quite feasible, but that's
technically not "spec."


I wonder if that was to allow for mechanical limitations
of the transports of the day. Some 80s-vintage players
didn't like CDs much longer than that...the UREI's we had
at the station I worked at from '88-90 was one such model.
Back to Top View Hykker's Profile Search for other posts by Hykker
 
Brian W.
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2160
Posted: 23 July 2013 at 7:36am | IP Logged Quote Brian W.

Hykker wrote:
Brian W. wrote:
In the early years of the CD format, it
was in the actually CD specs that you couldn't go longer
than 65 minutes to a disc. They quickly found, of course,
that up to 80 minutes is quite feasible, but that's
technically not "spec."


I wonder if that was to allow for mechanical limitations
of the transports of the day. Some 80s-vintage players
didn't like CDs much longer than that...the UREI's we had
at the station I worked at from '88-90 was one such model.

Well, the players would have been built to the spec, probably, rather than the other way around. And I may have my facts mixed up regarding the 65-minute running time. I swear I can recall reading, back in the day, that a CD can hold up to 65 minutes (which got my attention because I had read 74:33).

But here's a fascinating article on the developement of the compact disc by one of the men who worked on the project, a joint venture between Philips and Sony. Did you know that if Philips had had their way, our CDs would be 14 bits instead of 16 bits? Interesting stuff.

http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm
Back to Top View Brian W.'s Profile Search for other posts by Brian W.
 
EdisonLite
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1561
Posted: 23 July 2013 at 11:02am | IP Logged Quote EdisonLite

I thought (at least as of 1985) that the max capacity of CD was 74 minutes, and somewhere in the '90s, it was changed to 80 minutes. Is this not the case?
Back to Top View EdisonLite's Profile Search for other posts by EdisonLite Visit EdisonLite's Homepage
 
Brian W.
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2160
Posted: 23 July 2013 at 11:30am | IP Logged Quote Brian W.

EdisonLite wrote:
I thought (at least as of 1985) that the max capacity of CD was 74 minutes, and somewhere in the '90s, it was changed to 80 minutes. Is this not the case?

There is no max capacity for CDs. The max capacity is however much will fit on the disc and is playable.
Back to Top View Brian W.'s Profile Search for other posts by Brian W.
 
Ringmaster_D
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 08 July 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Posted: 23 July 2013 at 1:28pm | IP Logged Quote Ringmaster_D

Can someone with a commercial copy of this 45 confirm the timing? I'm especially interested to see if there is a speed difference between the 45 and the LP version.
Back to Top View Ringmaster_D's Profile Search for other posts by Ringmaster_D
 
jimct
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
Posted: 24 July 2013 at 1:18am | IP Logged Quote jimct

Dave, I also own a commercial 45 for "Little Jeannie". I just pulled it for you.
The deadwax info is *exactly* the same as it was for my promo copy, right
down to the "AM3" at the end. That means the stock 45's timing would be
identical to the promo 45's timing details I provided above.
Back to Top View jimct's Profile Search for other posts by jimct
 
abagon
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 01 March 2008
Location: Japan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
Posted: 24 July 2013 at 9:09am | IP Logged Quote abagon

My commercial 45 (MCA-41236) is different from Jim's 45. The dead wax info is "MC-10219-AM5" on the runout groove.
Perhaps, my 45 is a later pressing. The actual running time is (5:15), the listed time is "5:18" on the 45 record label. (The label has 4 colors, blue, yellow red and green).
The actual LP running time is (5:16), the listed time is "5:18" on the LP label.("21 at 33" MCA-5121).
There is no speed difference between the 45 and the LP.

--abagon


Edited by abagon on 24 July 2013 at 9:11am
Back to Top View abagon's Profile Search for other posts by abagon
 
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4193
Posted: 24 July 2013 at 10:04pm | IP Logged Quote Todd Ireland

Thanks to everyone here who contributed vinyl run time info. This is quite helpful and I wasn't previously aware that the LP length of "Little Jeannie" is slightly longer than the 45 length(s).

As for a compact disc's maximum capacity, it has indeed been reported that the CD was originally designed to run a total of 74:33 to accommodate Beethoven's famous Ninth Symphony in D Minor. Then over time, CD manufacturers were able to expand the maximum disc time to 80 minutes.

Edited by Todd Ireland on 24 July 2013 at 10:04pm
Back to Top View Todd Ireland's Profile Search for other posts by Todd Ireland
 
Ringmaster_D
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 08 July 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Posted: 25 July 2013 at 9:01am | IP Logged Quote Ringmaster_D

The plot thickens! Jim, did you confirm that the difference between your copy and the LP is in fact due to speed, or is it an early fade?
Back to Top View Ringmaster_D's Profile Search for other posts by Ringmaster_D
 
Yah Shure
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
Posted: 25 July 2013 at 10:42am | IP Logged Quote Yah Shure

My commercial 45 is a Pinckneyville pressing, and the actual time runs 5:15.5. Deadwax reads "YOU CAN IT BEAT THAT"   "MC 10219-AM4". Yes, I figured they'd meant "can't beat, but if the "I" was supposed to be an apostrophe, it shouldn't have been etched lower than the "T" to the right of it. :)

Brian W. wrote:
Did you know that if Philips had had their way, our CDs would be 14 bits instead of 16 bits?


So... would brickwalled CDs have sounded any less louder at 14 bits than they already do at 16?   ;)

Edited by Yah Shure on 25 July 2013 at 10:43am
Back to Top View Yah Shure's Profile Search for other posts by Yah Shure
 
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1523
Posted: 25 July 2013 at 11:06am | IP Logged Quote crapfromthepast

I don't think I've ever noticed a speed variation from mastering-to-mastering. They all run about 72 BPM.

The version on Rhino's Billboard Top Hits 1980 (1992) runs 71.8 BPM throughout. The version on Time-Life's Sounds Of The Eighties Vol. 7 1980 (1995)is a differently-EQ'd digital clone of the Rhino disc. The version on the 50-CD promo CD The A List also runs at 71.8 BPM throughout.

If I remember, I'll dig up the BPM values for the single-artist EJ discs tonight.

Edited by crapfromthepast on 30 July 2013 at 7:26am


__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
Back to Top View crapfromthepast's Profile Search for other posts by crapfromthepast Visit crapfromthepast's Homepage
 
jimct
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906
Posted: 25 July 2013 at 4:42pm | IP Logged Quote jimct

Dave, I don't really think "the plot thickened" here. I myself own hundreds
of 45s with slightly different run times, based on different pressing
plants/stampers. This song must *really* be a personal favorite of yours,
for you to be quite this curious, over basically 2 seconds. I could've just as
easily called own my 45's timing (5:13), not (5:12). It was right on the
borderline.

I pulled both my promo and stock 45s out for you, and timed them. My 45
boxes are stacked 8 high. Lifting is a major problem for me. Posters after
me have determined that there is no speed difference. I trust their
findings on that. My comment that my 45 *may* have been sped up was
simply thrown out as a possibility; it has since been refuted. I am not one
of the guys on this board that can load audio into a computer, and
compares wav files. Don't know how to. Like I said earlier, when songs
have usually long, slow fades, like "Little Jeannie" does, my experiences
has been that you tend to get a wider end timing range. Some 45/CD
master-ers will dump out a couple of seconds early (like the 5:10 length
CDs). Others won't. After all the great info contributed by others to this
post, I am now certain that my stock/promo 45 copies were simply faded
:02-:03 seconds earlier than Abagon's was.

Dave, I hope you appreciated the effort that I've already gone to here for
you. With all due respect, I've done as much as I can to help you already.



Edited by jimct on 25 July 2013 at 4:56pm
Back to Top View jimct's Profile Search for other posts by jimct
 
crapfromthepast
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1523
Posted: 25 July 2013 at 7:21pm | IP Logged Quote crapfromthepast

For the sake of completeness:

71.7 BPM on Greatest Hits 1976-1986 (1992)
71.9 BPM on Greatest Hits Vol. 3 1979-1987 (1987)
71.7 BPM on To Be Continued (1990)
71.9 BPM with an early fade on Love Songs (1982?)

No speed issues on any of these, or the three listed above.

__________________
There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one Crap From The Past.
Back to Top View crapfromthepast's Profile Search for other posts by crapfromthepast Visit crapfromthepast's Homepage
 
Ringmaster_D
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 08 July 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Posted: 29 July 2013 at 7:19am | IP Logged Quote Ringmaster_D

Thanks everyone. The efforts of those on this board with access to the original vinyl--as well as computer capabilities--is always appreciated, especially by those of us with musical OCD. And, yes, I've always dug this tune.
Back to Top View Ringmaster_D's Profile Search for other posts by Ringmaster_D
 
Brian W.
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2160
Posted: 14 November 2017 at 6:11am | IP Logged Quote Brian W.

FYI, my MCA US stock copy of "Little Jeannie" (deadwax MC 10219-AM4 with "YOU CAN'T BEAT THAT" etched into the deadwax as well) seems to runs the full-length of the LP version, maybe minus one second (hard to tell, my 45 is fairly crackly).

But my 45 starts to fade at a more rapid rate during the last few seconds, in the middle of the word "bad" at 5:12, I think. The LP version ends with "I'm so in..." and I can hear that final "I'm so..." on my 45, but it's lower in volume than on the album. The final "in" may be there, but my record is too crackly to hear it.

The original MCA "21 at 33" album is the only source I know of where this song doesn't dump early at all. It runs 5:16 there. It's a close second for "Greatest Hits Vol III," where it does end before that final word "so."

As far as speed goes, I don't have a direct drive turntable and my 45 of this has the center hole quite a bit off center, which made the speed wonky, so I can't contribute anything as far as running time goes.

Edited by Brian W. on 14 November 2017 at 6:14am
Back to Top View Brian W.'s Profile Search for other posts by Brian W.
 
Ringmaster_D
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 08 July 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Posted: 14 November 2017 at 12:39pm | IP Logged Quote Ringmaster_D

Thanks Brian. Those long fades are a bear for timing,
aren't they? I think I'll go back to the 21 at
33
version and recreate the fade from that,
especially if the actual length of the 45 is closer to
5:15, which would make most versions about 5 seconds
short. By the way, when I first posted I was really
concerned about potential speed differences. To me even
slight speed differences can greatly affect the "feel"
of the song.
Back to Top View Ringmaster_D's Profile Search for other posts by Ringmaster_D
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
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



This page was generated in 0.2188 seconds.