![]() |
alannah myles "black velvet" |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123 5> |
Author | |
edtop40 ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 29 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 28 August 2006 at 8:08pm |
another interesting one here we have
the cassingle starts as if it skips and the version from her self titled cd starts smooth........by pure chance i found the correct cassingle version on the cd (S) (4:45) Flashback 78308 Billboard #1 Hits Of The ‘90s this cd has the correct skipped sounding intro....does anyone have the 45 and does it contain this skipped sounding intro or is it smooth.... |
|
edtop40
|
|
![]() |
|
Brian W. ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 13 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Wow, Ed... Your attention to detail knows no end. You're amazing.
|
|
![]() |
|
Pat Downey ![]() Admin Group ![]() Joined: 01 October 2003 Status: Offline Points: 1 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ed I am quite impressed with your detective work on Black Velvet. Seems as though there is a very brief segment truncated on the cassette single introduction and the version found on Billboard #1 Hits Of The '90s (about .15 seconds). When I checked the vinyl 45 I discovered that this truncation is present on the vinyl 45 too.
Chat board members, do you think this obvious mastering error should qualify this truncated version to be called a "45 version"? |
|
![]() |
|
maciav ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 02 June 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I vote for the truncated version to be called "45 version". I really didn't know there was any other version since my 45, and my "Billboard #1 Hits of the 90's" CD have the truncated version. And in my area at least (Southcentral PA), that was the version always played on the pop stations and the rock stations.
|
|
Mike C. from PA
|
|
![]() |
|
Todd Ireland ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 16 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 23 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Since we're only talking about the first .15 seconds of "Black Velvet" being truncated on commercial single copies, I would actually be more inclined to not call this a "45 version". It's one thing if an opening note was deliberately edited off the 45 (such as on the Little River Band's "The Other Guy"), but it's another thing if the opening note is fractionally truncated due to what is clearly a mastering error. I would instead suggest making a comment in the database under the song title as follows:
The opening note of the intro is very slightly truncated on commercial single copies. Then, the following comment could be posted next to the Billboard #1 Hits of the '90s disc entry, and any other CDs that may apply: (contains the very slightly truncated intro heard on commercial single copies). Any other opinions? |
|
![]() |
|
aaronk ![]() Admin Group ![]() Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 120 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I also agree with Todd. Given that it wasn't a deliberate edit or fade in, I'd vote not to call it a 45 version.
|
|
![]() |
|
Brian W. ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 13 October 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I agree with Todd as well... a note under the song title, then a note beside CDs that match, something like "(with trucated opening note)," is the most logical. I agree that it's not a real "45 version."
|
|
![]() |
|
maciav ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 02 June 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Todd, Aaron, and Brian:
I came to this site as a passionate collector of music. I found out about this site by doing research when I became fed up from spending money on CDs, and more-times-than-not, purchasing one that did not have the version of the song that I wanted. In fact, my eyes were opened very widely when I found out how many versions of singles exist. Having said that: I am a novice when it comes to mixes and making home versions of music. I do not have expensive software and / or hardware that allows me to "re-create" the 45-version, etc. Nor have I worked as a professional in the music industry, other than working in a record store during my twenties. Therefore, I may be looking at this from a different perspective than the rest of you. Having said that: Don't record companies somtimes "play games" with their music releases? Isn't it possible that Atlantic intended for the 45 released in 1989 - 1990 to have the truncation? If we can assume that to be true, how can we assume that the single had a "mastering error"? But really, isn't that all a moot point also? To me, the only thing that matters is that the original 45 had the truncation. To me, that means any CD with the truncation has the "true" "45 version". Again, I am a passionate fan of music and not a technical expert like the rest of you. But at the same time, I wanted to express my thoughts, and based on my reasoning, see if the rest of you are in agreement with me. Thanks. |
|
Mike C. from PA
|
|
![]() |
|
aaronk ![]() Admin Group ![]() Joined: 16 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 120 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
maciav, I understand your reasoning. Personally, I highly doubt that a record company would purposely truncate the intro by only a split second. Why bother? I also don't think they "play games" with their music releases. After all, this is an artist's work they are playing with. I would think that most artists don't like their music tinkered with.
The reasons I agree with Todd are because 1) I would not want to spend money to purchase the "45 version" of "Black Velvet" knowing that the only difference is a slight .15 second truncation on the intro, and 2) given Todd's suggestion to list the note about the truncation being present on commercial copies, I would know that I didn't have to search for a "45 version," while you would know that you'll have to buy the truncated version to have what was released commercially. I think Todd's suggestion would satisfy both of us as collectors, while listing "45 version" would cause some people to buy this song again and be disappointed to find out there's only a .15 second difference. |
|
![]() |
|
maciav ![]() Music Fan ![]() Joined: 02 June 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Aaron,
Think about this: if the record companies didn't "play games", this web site / chat board may not even exist. It is only because of all of the different mixes / versions of singles that record companies release (totally pre-determined by them and at our mercy) that we are even having this discussion. In that sense, I do think they play games. They have to play games in this sense to drive their sales so that people will keep buying the same songs over and over again. Don't you agree? And I don't find it hard to believe at all that Atlantic could have purposely released a slightly truncated "Black Velvet." And even if it was unintentional, Atlantic apparently chose not to correct it during its chart run to #1. To me, this makes it the official "45 version" that was in release at the time. To your other point, many artists have had battles with record companies over the final product to be released to the public and lost. |
|
Mike C. from PA
|
|
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123 5> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() 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 |