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: "I.G.Y." - Donald Fagen Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
sriv94
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 16 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1452
Posted: 14 October 2005 at 1:56pm | IP Logged Quote sriv94
Another question--while perusing eBay I was looking at Donald Fagen's "I.G.Y." One pressing (which appears to be a U.S. release) runs 4:58, according to the label. Another pressing (Canada pressing) was a promo release that runs 5:23.

Are these edits straight fades of the 6:02 LP version, or is there more to it than that?

Doug
Back to Top View sriv94's Profile Search for other posts by sriv94
 
edtop40
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4990
Posted: 14 October 2005 at 2:53pm | IP Logged Quote edtop40
donald fagen's hit "i.g.y. (what a beautiful world)" issued in the usa in 1982 on warner 29900 is simply an early fade of the cd/lp version from "the nightfly" issued on warner 23696 which fades out to run 5:20 even though the label states the run time as 4:56.........

__________________
edtop40
Back to Top View edtop40's Profile Search for other posts by edtop40
 
sriv94
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 16 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1452
Posted: 15 October 2005 at 8:42am | IP Logged Quote sriv94
Thanks, Ed!

Doug
Back to Top View sriv94's Profile Search for other posts by sriv94
 
aaronk
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6428
Posted: 30 June 2007 at 9:27am | IP Logged Quote aaronk
I also just recently created the early fade of Donald Fagen's "I.G.Y.," but I noticed that the database says "LP version." It would probably be more accurate to say "LP length."
Back to Top View aaronk's Profile Search for other posts by aaronk Visit aaronk's Homepage
 
Todd Ireland
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4217
Posted: 03 July 2007 at 11:04pm | IP Logged Quote Todd Ireland
Pat:

You might also want to note in the database that commercial 45 copies of "I.G.Y. (What a Beautiful World)" run 5:20, not 4:56 as stated on the record label.
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: 205
Posted: 21 September 2017 at 5:03pm | IP Logged Quote Ringmaster_D
Another fade question... can someone provide the
starting point of the fade?
Back to Top View Ringmaster_D's Profile Search for other posts by Ringmaster_D
 
sriv94
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 16 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1452
Posted: 21 September 2017 at 7:59pm | IP Logged Quote sriv94
Fade is audible around the (5:00) mark.

__________________
Doug
---------------
All of the good signatures have been taken.
Back to Top View sriv94's Profile Search for other posts by sriv94
 
eriejwg
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3483
Posted: 21 September 2017 at 9:20pm | IP Logged Quote eriejwg
5:00-5:17 is the fade time on the recreation I have.
Back to Top View eriejwg's Profile Search for other posts by eriejwg Visit eriejwg's Homepage
 
Ringmaster_D
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 08 July 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 205
Posted: 22 September 2017 at 6:29am | IP Logged Quote Ringmaster_D
Thanks guys.
Back to Top View Ringmaster_D's Profile Search for other posts by Ringmaster_D
 
NightAire
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 20 February 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 973
Posted: 20 April 2019 at 8:59pm | IP Logged Quote NightAire
I love this song and the full LP length doesn't seem too long... but I'm surprised, for all the editing done in the era, that they didn't chop the beginning, and maybe most of the instrumental segments between verses.

Chances are they could have taken that 5:20 down to 3:30... Wonder if more stations would have played it? Would it have been a bigger hit?

(BTW, the SACD really is a delight to hear! Spectacular sound quality.)

__________________
Gene Savage
http://www.BlackLightRadio.com
http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage
Owasso, Oklahoma USA
Back to Top View NightAire's Profile Search for other posts by NightAire Visit NightAire's Homepage
 
Paul Haney
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1709
Posted: 21 April 2019 at 2:11pm | IP Logged Quote Paul Haney
NightAire wrote:
Wonder if more stations would have
played it? Would it have been a bigger hit?


It hit #6 in Radio & Records and #3 in the Gavin Report,
so it got plenty of airplay. Another case of a 1982 hit
that didn't get its due in Billboard.

Edited by Paul Haney on 21 April 2019 at 2:12pm
Back to Top View Paul Haney's Profile Search for other posts by Paul Haney
 
Loveland
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 20 April 2013
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150
Posted: 11 May 2019 at 8:10pm | IP Logged Quote Loveland
Paul Haney wrote:
It hit #6 in Radio & Records and #3 in the Gavin Report,
so it got plenty of airplay. Another case of a 1982 hit
that didn't get its due in Billboard.


I disagree. The single didn't sell. The Hot 100 chart should've always been based on sales alone, without the inclusion of airplay.
Back to Top View Loveland's Profile Search for other posts by Loveland
 
Hykker
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1371
Posted: 12 May 2019 at 7:16am | IP Logged Quote Hykker
Loveland wrote:
Paul Haney wrote:
It hit #6 in Radio
& Records and #3 in the Gavin Report,
so it got plenty of airplay. Another case of a 1982 hit
that didn't get its due in Billboard.


I disagree. The single didn't sell. The Hot 100 chart
should've always been based on sales alone, without the
inclusion of airplay.


While I don't have access to sales info on that song you
do make a good point. R&R's charts were strictly airplay
from their reporters, I presume the same goes for Gavin
(generally smaller market stations who didn't qualify for
R&R reporter status), so since sales were factored in
BB's charts it makes sense it wouldn't have charted as
high if it was mostly a turntable hit.

Back to Top View Hykker's Profile Search for other posts by Hykker
 
Paul Haney
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1709
Posted: 12 May 2019 at 1:13pm | IP Logged Quote Paul Haney
There was something going on with Billboard in the
1982/1983 time frame. There are just way too many songs
that made the Top 10 (or even Top 5) in R&R that didn't
make the Top 20 (or even Top 40) in Billboard. That can't
all be attributed to poor sales numbers. Even at the
time, I found it weird that songs like "Gypsy" by
Fleetwood Mac and "It's Raining Again" by Supertramp were
falling short of the Top 10 in Billboard. After my week-
by-week research on the R&R charts, I can say that the R&R
and Billboard charts were always pretty close in the other
eras, with much less glaring differences than existed in
1982/83.
Back to Top View Paul Haney's Profile Search for other posts by Paul Haney
 
Paul Haney
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1709
Posted: 12 May 2019 at 1:18pm | IP Logged Quote Paul Haney
Loveland wrote:
The Hot 100 chart should've always been
based on sales alone, without the inclusion of airplay.


I totally disagree with that statement. As a Top 40 fan
growing up, I couldn't afford to buy all the singles I
wanted, but I could hear them on the radio. The two
(sales and airplay) have always gone hand-in-hand and I
thought it was cool that Billboard had a formula that
combined the two into one definitive chart.
Back to Top View Paul Haney's Profile Search for other posts by Paul Haney
 
aaronk
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6428
Posted: 12 May 2019 at 6:20pm | IP Logged Quote aaronk
Paul, I fully agree. The Hot 100 has always been a chart that shows
song popularity relative to other songs for a given week. Popularity
does not equal sales alone. Today it's mostly streaming and airplay. I've
always been totally comfortable with this formula.

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
Back to Top View aaronk's Profile Search for other posts by aaronk Visit aaronk's Homepage
 
torcan
MusicFan
MusicFan


Joined: 23 June 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
Posted: 15 May 2019 at 2:18pm | IP Logged Quote torcan
Paul Haney wrote:
There was something going on with
Billboard in the
1982/1983 time frame. There are just way too many
songs
that made the Top 10 (or even Top 5) in R&R that
didn't
make the Top 20 (or even Top 40) in Billboard. That
can't
all be attributed to poor sales numbers. Even at the
time, I found it weird that songs like "Gypsy" by
Fleetwood Mac and "It's Raining Again" by Supertramp
were
falling short of the Top 10 in Billboard. After my
week-
by-week research on the R&R charts, I can say that the
R&R
and Billboard charts were always pretty close in the
other
eras, with much less glaring differences than existed
in
1982/83.


The charts of 1982-83 were strange to say the least.
Songs were spending multiple weeks at their peak
position then dropping out of sight very quickly.
Large portions of the top 40 remained static from week
to week making it hard for songs below them to move
up. This has been discussed a fair bit on other
forums, but a lot of this had to do with the chart
rules at the time concerning bullets (or stars and
superstars, as Billboard used back then) – that songs
had to first lose their stars before failing down the
chart.

Do you think the chart director just got lazy around
this time and lost interest? He’d been doing it for
close to 10 years by this point. There has to be some
reason for this weird anomaly.

In April 1983 he was either fired (most likely) or
left on his own (depending on which story you believe)
and the charts returned to normal.
Back to Top View torcan's Profile Search for other posts by torcan
 

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 0.1094 seconds.