Top 40 Music on Compact Disc: the buoys "timothy"

Active Topics

Memberlist

Help

Chat Board
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board

Topic: the buoys "timothy"

Author

Message

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

edtop40
MusicFan

Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4992

Posted: 24 April 2006 at 6:53pm \| IP Logged

what is the word or words that are censored in this song........i listened to the 45 versus the version from "have a nice day" and they are the same as far as the breaks go...the only difference is the 45 is in mono while the cd version is in stereo..........as we all know that does, at times, make a noticable difference in sound...........edtop40

__________________
edtop40

AndrewChouffi
MusicFan

Joined: 24 September 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1065

Posted: 24 April 2006 at 7:05pm \| IP Logged

The censored version is pretty rare...

The line "...stomach was full as it could be..." was replaced with something like "both us us fine as we could be".

Please note: I really don't remember the actual replaced line because I never owned the censored promo and am only going by hazy memory.

Andy

jimct
MusicFan

Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906

Posted: 25 April 2006 at 4:25pm \| IP Logged

Impressive memory, Andrew. It was "both of us fine as we could be" as the replacement line. In the "Hall Of Shame" of bad edits - the tempo of the song isn't maintained during the changed line. As if someone hit "pitch control" to 40RPM for 7 seconds, then returned it to 45RPM. Actually hurts the ears! This promo 45 says "Revised Lyric" on the label. There was still another "Timothy" special version promo 45 - Timothy ("Beeped" version.) This had a tone, like on "A Boy Named Sue" placed over "Hungry as hell..." becomes "Hungry as BEEP, no food to eat." This version leaves in the original "stomach was full" line, however.

edtop40
MusicFan

Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4992

Posted: 26 April 2006 at 11:04am \| IP Logged

why did they edit such an innocuous lyric.......sounds rather tame to be edited.......

__________________
edtop40

Paul Haney
MusicFan

Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1709

Posted: 26 April 2006 at 11:20am \| IP Logged

Well, considering the song alluded to cannibalism, I can see where the "stomach was full" line might have offended someone. In fact, some stations refused to play even the edited versions because of the subject matter.

edtop40
MusicFan

Joined: 29 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4992

Posted: 26 April 2006 at 12:45pm \| IP Logged

i did not know that.....

__________________
edtop40

jimct
MusicFan

Joined: 07 April 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3906

Posted: 26 April 2006 at 5:25pm \| IP Logged

"Timothy" was first released back in January of 1970. WILK, Wilkes-Barre, PA,(the group's hometown) charted Timothy in Feb. of '70. It didn't end up peaking nationally 'til late April/early May of '71! The 45 had been out FOREVER. My info on this: Struggling NY-based songwriter Rupert Holmes (yes, the same guy) had a buddy who was an engineer at Scepter. He got them to agree to put out one 45 by his buddy, with no promotion, as a favor. Rupert decided to try to write a song that would "get banned." The cooking show "The Galloping Gourmet" was on during the write, getting the food angle in his head. He came up with "cannibalism during a mining disaster - that'll get banned!" A few stations did play it - kids figured out its meaning, and called stations non-stop to request it. For awhile, Scepter promoters didn't even realize "Timothy" was one of its own records! - and when the "cannibalism" angle was turning off WABC and some other big stations, Scepter then tried to say Timothy was a mule, not a person....it wasn't true, and it didn't work. WABC & other big-market stations never did play it.

Bill Cahill
MusicFan

Joined: 27 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591

Posted: 29 April 2006 at 3:38pm \| IP Logged

Yeah Jimct is right on both of the "censored" versions. I have both promos. Took me forever to find them. Not many copies out there.

Bill Cahill
MusicFan

Joined: 27 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591

Posted: 22 June 2011 at 7:53pm \| IP Logged

The stereo version that's on all CDs should be noted as LP mix. The mono 45 (including the bleeped and revised DJ versions) is a different mix, which drops out the strings completely right after the line "God what did we do", I assume to make the horns punch better. (Strings immediately come back up so they are only missing for a second) So the 45 misses the "wind up" of the strings that you hear on the stereo version right before the horns hit. Same kind of thing happens near the end of the song too at one point. Minor thing but it is different.

Yah Shure
MusicFan

Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1315

Posted: 22 June 2011 at 9:52pm \| IP Logged

So now we learn that they ate some of the orchestra members, too? What cannibals!! :) Great catch, Bill.

Instead of concocting that lame mule story, Scepter should've ridden on the coattails of the hit film 2001: A Space Odyssey by claiming that the line was actually "hungry as HAL..." :)

Hykker
MusicFan

Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1373

Posted: 23 June 2011 at 10:22am \| IP Logged

jimct wrote:

"Timothy" was first released back in January of 1970. WILK, Wilkes-Barre, PA,(the group's hometown) charted Timothy in Feb. of '70.

ISTR WKBW playing the song well before it became a hit, though I can't say for sure it was that early. Was the 1970 release also on Scepter?

Yah Shure
MusicFan

Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1315

Posted: 23 June 2011 at 2:14pm \| IP Logged

Hykker wrote:

Was the 1970 release also on Scepter?

"Timothy" retained its original 1970 catalog number - Scepter 12275 - all the way through its very long incubation period and eventual chart run. By comparison, Dionne Warwick's "I'll Never Fall In Love Again", only two singles further up in the label's catalog at # 12273, charted in late December, 1969.

jimct wrote:

In the "Hall Of Shame" of bad edits - the tempo of the song isn't maintained during the changed line. As if someone hit "pitch control" to 40RPM for 7 seconds, then returned it to 45RPM... This promo 45 says "Revised Lyric" on the label.

Wow, Jim, I didn't ever remember hearing a speed variation on that punch-in, so I dug out my "Revised Lyric" copy for the first time in eons. Lyric revision aside, it's obvious that there's a punch-in there, but only because the tone quality is noticeably thinner, with much weaker bass and percussion presence. However, there is no speed or pitch change during the patch job on my copy. Did Scepter issue a *revision* of the "revised lyric" DJ 45? If the first one was as bad as you described it - and enough radio folks told Scepter the same thing - I can see them having another go at it to get it done right. I'll give them credit for scrambling to bring home a hit under such unusual circumstances.

One could almost use a scorecard to keep track of this recording's interesting variations, even for the commercial copies. Scepter utilized several different pressing plants during "Timothy"'s run. I have stock copies on both the older reddish-orange Scepter label and the newer multicolor design. Ditto for The Buoys LP: An orange-labeled copy came with a lyric sheet insert, but a multicolor label issue did not.

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6430

Posted: 23 June 2011 at 4:05pm \| IP Logged

There must be more than one issue, then, because I've heard Jim's "Revised Lyric" copy, and the pitch change is dreadful. He pretty much nailed it by saying it slows down to "40 RPM for 7 seconds." (OK, it's maybe not that bad, but certainly easy to detect.) If you happen to have a nice clean copy of that "Revised Lyric" 45, I'd love to have a wav. I have dubs of two different copies, and they both have fuzzy groove distortion from styrene that has been played a few too many times. Both also have the noticeable pitch change.

Edited by aaronk on 23 June 2011 at 4:06pm

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

Yah Shure
MusicFan

Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1315

Posted: 23 June 2011 at 7:55pm \| IP Logged

aaronk wrote:

If you happen to have a nice clean copy of that "Revised Lyric" 45, I'd love to have a wav. I have dubs of two different copies, and they both have fuzzy groove distortion from styrene that has been played a few too many times. Both also have the noticeable pitch change.

Oh... um... let me put my eBay Price Gouger hat on for this "rare," "highly collectible," "one-of-a-kind"... :)

Just to be certain, I pasted the revised 7-second segment into one channel of a dub of the uncensored 45, and the pitches did match. Does the "40 RPM" revised lyric DJ 45 also carry the SDR-12275-B catalog number?

"Timothy" never was a sonic wonder as a 45; even a mint copy will sound a bit reminiscent of a styrene record gone bad. Their follow-up 45, "Give Up Your Guns," sounded fine and was in stereo, to boot.

Bill Cahill
MusicFan

Joined: 27 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591

Posted: 23 June 2011 at 8:15pm \| IP Logged

I have three copies of the revised lyric version, one is near mint. They all have the fuzzy groove distortion. The groove distortion is most likely due to the "revised" portion of the song being louder. That's the only part of the record that has the groove distortion, I think they just pressed it badly, making it easy to wear. The best way to copy the song for digital archiving is record it in stereo and then choose the channel with least distortion. I've never heard it without the pitch change, it happens in the horns a couple of seconds before the vocals come back, an odd place to make an edit. As far as the sonic quality, the revised lyric version is noticably worse than the other pressings.

Edited by Bill Cahill on 23 June 2011 at 8:16pm

Yah Shure
MusicFan

Joined: 11 December 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1315

Posted: 01 July 2011 at 1:17pm \| IP Logged

Yah Shure wrote:

However, there is no speed or pitch change during the patch job on my copy.

("Accepting the Top 40 Music On Compact Disc Chat Board's 'Tin Ears' Award is... Yah Shure.")

I'd like to thank Aaron for sending me a copy of his Revised Lyric dub, which demonstrated that I didn't know what I was talking about. There was only one Revised Lyric DJ 45 after all, and my copy had the same slowdown zone.

As my hearing loss continues its inevitable march to the sea, the ability to detect pitch changes under certain conditions seems to be following right in its footsteps. Hearing the Revised Lyric dub on a portable radio via a small AM transmitter made the slowdown immediately apparent. Yet hearing it under headphones - my normal editing mode - made the glitch much harder to detect.

I know Jim used the "40 RPM" reference strictly to illustrate a point, but I should add that the slowdown doesn't actually come anywhere near 40 RPM, and it probably isn't even as slow as 44 RPM. I slowed the "my stomach was full..." line in the uncensored version down to the rough equivalent of 40 RPM and no one, myself included, could possibly miss such an obvious speed change. I was expecting to hear a similarly drastic change in the speed on the revised promo, and while it is pretty awful, it's nowhere near 40 RPM-drastic.

On the other hand, there was probably a very good reason why I filed away my copy of the Revised Lyric DJ 45 in the '70s and never listened to it again until now. :)

Smokin' TomGary
MusicFan

Joined: 26 June 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186

Posted: 06 July 2011 at 6:39pm \| IP Logged

I believe Jim's version was taken from my promo 45. The "Revised Lyric" white label promo 45 has label number SDR-12275-B (61526). The deadwax number is 61526-1A. It does have a noticeable tonal quality change and horrible pitch change at the edit point. The flip side is SDR-12275-A (61315), deadwax number is 61315-1B and times out at 2:48

The "Edited, Bleeped Out" white label promo 45 has label number SDJ-12275-B (61375). The deadwax number is 61375-1A. The flip side is SDJ-12275-A, deadwax number is 61315-1A and times out at 2:48

I hope this helps.

Search for other posts by Smokin' TomGary

KentT
MusicFan

Joined: 25 May 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 650

Posted: 16 July 2011 at 7:54am \| IP Logged

You might say that this record was truly a cannibal.
Scepter 45 singles were among the very worst for playing
life. Many of them were fuzzy and distorted when brand new
and were severely worn out in 10 plays.

__________________
I turn up the good and turn down the bad!

Indy500
MusicFan

Joined: 29 January 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360

Posted: 22 January 2017 at 4:55pm \| IP Logged

Any imports with one of the 45 versions after 5 years?

Santi Paradoa
MusicFan

Joined: 17 February 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1085

Posted: 23 January 2017 at 12:28pm \| IP Logged

Ace released this song in mono on a various artist CD over ten years ago, however it is not the correct single mix. The way it was described to me was they simply used only one of the channels of the stereo mix (the right channel). This means the horns are missing from that version (which you could label as a neither the LP or 45 mix). Missed opportunity once again.

Edited by Santi Paradoa on 24 January 2017 at 9:08am

__________________
Santi Paradoa
Miami, Florida

Page of 2 Next >>

Printable version

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.