peter cetera "next time i fall"
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1022
Printed Date: 07 May 2025 at 12:20pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: peter cetera "next time i fall"
Posted By: edtop40
Subject: peter cetera "next time i fall"
Date Posted: 01 June 2006 at 5:57pm
|
does anyone have this song on cd.........does anyone's copy have a glitch at the 0:46 mark of the song.......when amy grant is singing the verse "but my heart...".....my cd has a glitch and was wonder if this was unique to my cd or if it's a master issue.........edtop40 ------------- edtop40 |
Replies:
Posted By: elcoleccionista
Date Posted: 01 June 2006 at 6:33pm
|
Ed, I suppose you meant "put my heart".
I have the song on a German edition of Cetera's "Solitude/Solitaire" album. Just checked and don't hear any defects there. |
Posted By: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 01 June 2006 at 7:18pm
|
The USA single is a remix.
Andy |
Posted By: cmmmbase
Date Posted: 01 June 2006 at 8:08pm
| The version on Amy Grant's Greatest Hits 1986-2004 has no such glitch that I could detect... |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 12 June 2006 at 4:13pm
|
i want to revisit this post....i just bought a second copy of the cd "solitude/solitaire" by peter cetera and this second copy has the exact same glitch at the 0:46 mark of the song......amy grant is singing "put my heart..." and it skips right during those words......on the 45 there is no skipping.....ALSO.....the 45 states that the version on it is a "remix" but other than the skip/non skip issue the 45 and the cd version are identical..........can ANYONE tell me what they hear is different between the 2 versions???....... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 12 June 2006 at 8:59pm
| Wow, that's weird, Ed. I have the U.S. pressing of Peter Cetera's Solitude/Solitaire CD and there's no skip at the 0:46 mark on my copy. Amy Grant is clearly heard singing: "Darling I... put my heart up on the shelf." I'm baffled as to how you could have two CD copies purchased at different times that skip in the exact same spot! I'm wondering if there's something about the binary code information pressed on the CD that's causing the laser mechanism on your particular CD player to experience this tracking problem. Anyone have any idea? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 June 2006 at 11:56pm
|
That is strange! Although I've had weirder things happen. I once purchased a copy of Organized Konfusion's self-titled CD, and there was no left channel! I purchased a second copy, and that one also had no left channel. I finally did find a copy that was in stereo and played normally.
Anyhow, I have this song from my TM Century library, and I don't hear any glitches at 0:46. It's the only version I have, so I couldn't tell you if there are any differences in the so called "remix." Perhaps it's a case where only very early pressings of the CD had the actual "LP version" or maybe they never issued a non-remixed version. Dunno... |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 23 June 2006 at 5:34pm
|
i've reviewed my cds again and there must have been a smudge on the cd, i cleaned it and it works fine now.......on another note (no pun intended) the 45 states that the version there is a remix, but i don't here any difference between the 45 version and the version from the original cd "solitude/solitaire"........does anyone hear a difference between the two because i can't........in my book they are identical.........anyone????? ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 23 June 2006 at 8:49pm
| I don't have the "Next Time I Fall" vinyl 45, Ed, but if you'd like me to listen to it, I'll compare it to the Solitude/Solitaire CD and let you know if I hear any differences. |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 24 June 2006 at 7:28am
|
just sent ya an mp3 for your review.............lmk whatcha think if it's a remix or just mis-labelled.... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 26 June 2006 at 10:24am
|
Ed:
I did a careful comparison between the "Next Time I Fall" vinyl 45 and the version appearing on the Solitude/Solitaire CD and I do hear differences in the mixes. The most evident distinction I hear occurs with the soft percussion taps (done on a bongo?) from the :28 to the :49 mark. On the vinyl 45, these percussion taps are placed in the far right speaker channel, but on CD they are potted dead center. Also, while Peter Cetera belts out the verse: "next time I fall... in love... next time I fall in love, it will be with yoooou", you can hear loud electric guitar strums from 1:12 to 1:19, from 2:15 to 2:21, and from 2:59 to 3:05 on the CD, yet the electric guitar sounds buried on the vinyl 45 during these time frames. Furthermore, during the first :08 of the song's orchestral introduction, the strings sound muddled and murky on the 45 compared to the CD. Overall, I think the vinyl 45 has the vocals mixed a little hotter and the entire recording sounds like it either has more reverb or a higher EQ'd midrange compared to its LP/CD counterpart. I'll conclude by saying that a 45 mix/LP mix distinction should be made for "Next Time I Fall" in the database even though the overall differences are subtle. Again, the best way to tell which mix is which is to listen for the percussion taps from :29 to :49. Potted right = 45 mix. Potted center = LP mix. |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 26 June 2006 at 1:36pm
|
todd......thanks for your input as always......i respect and admire your dedication to reviewing top 40 songs like me.......i will need to state my view on these types of minor differences, which COULD, be open to interpretation........my feeling is that if, for example, a guitar strum or drum tap is in the center versus the rear, or burried versus upfront, it SHOULD NOT qualify as a different version or a remix.....i've painstakingly listened, analyzed and reviewed over 6,000 top 40 songs on cd comparing them directly with the 45 versions, with headphones, over the last few years and many songs fit this type of description with subtle differences.......i believe that unless a song has different instrumention or vocals or has edits NOT consistant with it's 45 counterpart, it should be labeled as being identical.......a remix to me should be noticible and not burried in the bowels of the song.......another pet peeve is mono versus stereo.......i strive to get the exact mono version as the 45 but if a song is identical except for the stereo/mono differences, then it's the same except for the delivery.........sorry to run on.......just my thoughts..... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 26 June 2006 at 6:30pm
|
Ed:
You bring up some very good points and it's causing me to re-think my position on whether a 45 mix/LP mix distinction really is needed for "Next Time I Fall". I mean, if I knew of someone who's used to listening to the song on the Solitude/Solitaire CD and I were to ask him to listen to the 45, would he consciously notice anything different about the mixes? I'd honestly have to say he probably wouldn't! So how exactly should we determine when a (45 mix) or (LP mix) comment is necessary? I'd be interested to hear Pat's take on this. |
Posted By: Pat Downey
Date Posted: 26 June 2006 at 8:31pm
| I agree with Ed on this point. I listened to the 45 and LP version of "Next time I Fall" and I did notice some slight mix differences but quite frankly nothing jumped out at me and I never would have caught those differences if I wasn't wearing headphones! So I have elected not to differentiate the 45 mix and the LP mix in this particular case in point. There are very few 45 mix or LP mix comments in the database. |
Posted By: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 26 June 2006 at 9:21pm
|
Hi folks!
I didn't realize my simple comment "The USA single is a remix" would cause so much dialogue! I completely understand the differences may be subtle, but the single mix has always stood out to me as distinctly better than the LP mix, hence I have always played a dub of the 45 when I DJ an event. Could anyone tell me if they have yet to find the single remix on ANY CD? Thank You. Andy |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 27 June 2006 at 2:07am
In my opinion, if an instrument is placed center rather than in one channel, it IS a remix, whether anyone considers it worthy of note or not. |
edtop40 wrote:Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 27 June 2006 at 10:43am
I'm with Brian on this one. If someone took the time to produce a remix, labels the song "remix," and differences can be heard, regardless of how subtle, then I'd say it's worth noting. If Andrew is searching for this mix on CD, there are probably other readers searching for it, too. |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 27 June 2006 at 4:59pm
|
my believe is that if you can't hear the difference, there is no difference........ ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 27 June 2006 at 9:02pm
|
Both sides of this discussion continue to bring up such good points that I keep changing my position back and forth! It looks like Pat has already made a judgment call though so I guess the debate is settled for now.
By the way, the commercial 45 of "Next Time I Fall" runs 3:43 just like the LP/CD. For what it's worth, I checked my copy of Amy Grant's Greatest Hits 1986-2004 (A&M/UTV Records B0003415 and B0002106) CD and the song fades out :04 sooner on this disc than on the 45 and LP. I suspect this is also the case on Peter Cetera's You're the Inspiration - A Collection (River North 514161250) disc, though I don't have a copy to confirm. To Andrew: Unless the "Next Time I Fall" remix has appeared on one of the Time-Life CDs listed in the database, I imagine your best chance of obtaining this mix on CD is to maybe hunt down an import CD single release. Given that the song was a #1 U.S. hit, I would think a CD single was released somewhere around the world in 1986. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 28 June 2006 at 4:04am
But Todd heard the difference. |
Posted By: abagon
Date Posted: 08 May 2008 at 7:23am
I respect the post that "Todd wrote". My easy method to distinguish the difference is the listening to the time from 2:15 to 2:16 (or 1:13-1:14 or 2:59-3:00). The LP version has "the sound like "the horse is running" by the electric guitar". The running times of the commercial 45 and the LP"Solitude/Solitire"(U.S. issue) are "3:43"(Also the listed times). |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 10:42pm
| Since no one ever commented on abagon's observation regarding the "horse galloping" electric guitar effect heard on the LP, I thought I'd resurrect this thread for a final judgment call over whether database CD appearances of "Next Time I Fall" should contain 45/LP version notations. |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 07 January 2009 at 3:51pm
|
Hi All.
For what it's worth, i figured i'd chime in. Over the years on this board, there's a certain level of exact-ness that has become the norm for identifying different versions. Seems to me, if one notices anything different in a mix, it's a different mix and should say "45 mix". One man's "subtle" is another man's smack in the face, i suppose. The only thing i would want as a subscriber is that if a difference is noted on the entries, like "mix" or "version" that a brief comment is included at the top that says what that difference is. All the entries that have that are the most useful, in my opinion. BTW, side note, i never databased my own collection, so I really find this subscription most useful for finding my own music when I can't remember where i have it! Happy listening, Mark M |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 07 January 2009 at 4:50pm
That would open up a can of worms, not only in the vast amount of work necessary to go thru every single vs. album vs CD reissue vs remastered CD reissue vs GH collection and note mix differences that may be difficult to describe. Also, as you noted a mix difference that may be glaringly obvious to you might be so subtle as to not be noticed by someone else...witness the continuing stream of posts making note of newly discovered mix differences. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 07 January 2009 at 4:50pm
|
That's a good point, Mark. And since the "version" vs. "mix" debate has popped up in yet another thread, why not chime in (again)? I've always been a little confused about what constitutes a "mix" designation.
I really like your suggestion of adding notes next to the song title, but again, it sounds like a painstaking process for Pat to manage. What's great is that you can always ask the question here on the board (if it hasn't already been posted), and you'll usually get an answer within a day, sometimes even minutes after you post. I've always viewed the "45 version" as a generic term to encompass all instances when the 45 was different, other than just the length. To me, it's kind of like when the record label uses the term "single version." That term could mean many things---an edit, a mix difference, different lyrics, etc. Furthermore, it can become very cumbersome and just as confusing to use a plethora of terminology, which is why I think keeping it simple is best. At the same time, I like to know what those differences are, so I'm certainly not opposed to more detailed labeling. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 07 January 2009 at 6:09pm
| While Mark's suggestion sounds great in theory, I agree that going back through the database and documenting every specific 45/LP version and mix difference in detail would be a monumental task (I can picture Pat cringing at the mere thought of it!). There have been numerous mix differences and edit instructions described in depth over the years on this board, so the best bet for anyone seeking this type of information would be to conduct an artist or song title search using the "Search" feature located at the top of the message board. If the answer cannot be found through this process, then I echo Aaron's advice to post a question here on the board and chances are someone will be able to provide a good response. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 26 March 2012 at 4:34pm
|
Someone recently emailed me about the single version. Since Pat does not designate in the database, I will do so in this thread for CDs I know for certain:
(S) (3:42) &nb sp; Starland Music/Warner Special Products OPCD-4572 Starland Music Presents Reflections Of Love (45 version) (S) (3:43) &nb sp; Time-Life R138-18 Body Talk (45 version) (S) (3:43) &nb sp; Time-Life R834-06 Body Talk - Only You (LP version) I'm not certain which mix is on these CDs: (S) (3:43) &nb sp; Warner Brothers 25474 Peter Cetera - Solitude/Solitaire (I presume this is the LP version) (S) (3:39) &nb sp; River North 514161250 Peter Cetera - You're The Inspiration - A Collection (S) (3:39) &nb sp; A&M/UTV Records B0003415 and B0002106 Amy Grant - Greatest Hits 1986-2004 (S) (3:43) &nb sp; Time-Life M19234 It Takes Two - Classic Duets Because of the additional percussion (as noted below), I would call this a "version" rather than just "45 mix." ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 26 March 2012 at 4:37pm
|
By the way, on the 45 mix, at the very beginning, the synth has a very clean sound. On the LP mix, it sounds like there are wind sound effects layered on top. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 26 March 2012 at 6:29pm
|
There are actually a couple differences that I'm hearing, and they aren't just placement of instruments. Here's what I'm hearing:
1) As noted in the last post, the LP version has subtle "wind" sound effects over the intro synthesizer that are not present on 45 version. (That's the best way I can describe it, but it's probably a harmony synthesizer that was removed on the 45.) 2) During the chorus, there is a tambourine and shaker on the 45 that I don't hear on the LP. To point out the additional percussion, it would be like this on the single: Next time I fall (shaker x3, snare drum) In love (shaker x3, snare drum, tambourine shake x3) I'll know better what to do (this pattern continues throughout the chorus) On the LP version, I'm only hearing the light tap of a high hat, but certainly no shakers or tambourines. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: crapfromthepast
Date Posted: 26 March 2012 at 7:03pm
|
I had no idea that the 45 was a remix, even after hearing
the song a thousand times on the radio in 1986, and even after carefully combing through all the 1986 Hot 100 entries for all the different versions that are out there - twice! One more subtle difference: The bassline from 0:18 to 0:20 has some extra notes in the LP version, compared to the 45 version, where it doesn't do much at all. Comparing the two Time-Life discs noted above side-by- side, the 45 mix is MUCH brighter, although that could just be the mastering. Reflections of Love (1996) sounds extremely close to Body Talk (1994), and I suspect they use the same analog transfer. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 26 March 2012 at 7:42pm
| Thanks for the detailed analysis, guys. |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 04 April 2012 at 6:20pm
|
Fantastic, Aaron. ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: davidclark
Date Posted: 05 April 2012 at 12:21am
|
more of a shame is that the Time-Life Body Talk CD (the one without a sub-
name) was the prototype for the series. Shame that when the track appeared on "Only You", they used the LP version. ------------- dc1 |