Am i getting ripped off?

Jussi Huhtakangas · From: Helsinki, Finland

Paul,
Yep, Owen sure had "the touch", not to mention Harold. I'm a huge fan of the "Bradley sound" of the 50's and 60's, and their recording techniques. And I do find it unusual, that Jim and Patsy recorded the song in the same key, but that the tempo matches is even more unusual.
Pete B, Thanks for your words!! That show in Portland was the night, when the tonepot on my Bigsby vol/tone pedal got misconnected in the middle of the song. My pedal is one of the "new ones" the Bigsby co. put together shortly before they were sold to Gretsch. After examining the inside, I found out, they had used cheap Mexican pots. That's when I felt somewhat "ripped off". ( I had to relate this to the topic somehow )

Jussi

Geoff Brown · From: Nashvegas

"...they'd have to have had cut the songs in a similar tempo and key, if not exactly the same for it to actually work. I mean, yeah it would have to be the same key at least!"

I didn't have time to read thru all these posts, so perhaps someone has already addressed these points. With digital techniques in the studio, many tricks can be performed on recorded tracks. Among them are the ability to change tempo on a song, without altering the pitch or key. The opposite is also true. Not terribly difficult to sync tempo and key on two separately recorded tunes.In the digital realm, the editing possibilities are virtually endless. With older analog (tape) recordings, it's simply a matter of transfering those tracks into the digital domain and going from there. Done properly, there is no signal degradation when transferring the recorded analog signal to digital. It is common practice today to record in analog, because of it's inherent "warmth" and then transfer that recording to digital for its superior editing and processing capabilities.
Another possibility to consider in regard to the John Denver tracks is that they could well be alternate takes, which for whatever reason were not chosen for the original release. I have a good number of compilation discs which contain alternate versions of songs which sometimes are very different from the originally released version. These alternate takes often cost less to secure rights on for release on a compilation. And if they need tweaking, it's easy enough to add PSG or whatever. Gotta scoot..have a good day all

Miguel e Smith · From: Phoenix, AZ

Michael Holland, when talking about gospel (did I make that a small "g"?) recordings, nothing shocks me whatsoever. During my entire professional lifetime, the consistent source of unpaid studio or musician bills and no-budget knock-offs have been mostly with gospel record companies. I have worked with some very reputable individuals and companies too so I don't want to make this a blanket statement. It just happens there way too often. The mentality that they have of recruiting talent "for the Kingdom" mostly runs off my back these days. OK, I could go on and on but I won't.

Erik, I do agree that whoever is responsible for creating new versions of classic hits does have a responsibility to clearly label products accordingly. I too am a fan of many original hits. Although technology is very advanced today, I can't imagine loving a new recut version of Elton Johns "Tiny Dancer", or Yes' "Owner Of A Lonely Heart" or Willie's "Blue Eyes Cryin'In The Rain". For me too, it's kinda like buying a print of classic art, it's just not the original.

I too go through racks at Wal-Mart, CDGB's and several others and I have also bought stuff that I thought was the original and then I found out that it wasn't. Like everything else in our society, when enough dissatisfied customers want to see change, they usually have to ban together and complain. Who knows, maybe we can coherce the industry into placing special labels on products. I'll add my signature.

I just hope we don't stop buying music product altogether. Then again, I guess it depends on which sector we want to stimulate the economy in...buying a CD or cassette or buying a blank CD and burning one off the internet. Maybe that's why Sony sells both (?).

erik · Posted 18 Oct 2001 1:37 pm

Mike,
I have never complained except here. The handful of fake "Greatest Hits" CDs i have are mostly priced under $10. Some i got from Wal-Mart, some from cdnow.com. The John Denver CD only cost $8. I guess that should have tipped me off. Still, i am most concerned as to whether it is actually him singing on all the songs. He must have been around 50 when it was recorded, i'm just surprised how the character of the voice is not the same. George Jones still sounds like himself, though slightly older, of course.

Mike, next time you are in Wal-Mart look for this CD in the compilation rack: Rock-n-Roll Reunion Class of 67 Original Artists. Look it over and notice the small print in the lower left corner of the backside. If you have money to burn buy it and tell your opinion of the recordings.

[This message was edited by erik on 18 October 2001 at 02:44 PM.]

Miguel e Smith · From: Phoenix, AZ

Yeah, I'll check it out.

Rich Paton · From: Santa Maria, CA.,

I bought the cited Vern Gosden CD used in a small, locally owned CD shop, I'm guessing 1994 or so. I really like it & the playing on it. I've never heard earlier versions (actually, I decided to take a chance on it because something about the cover photo was saying "This dude is the Real Thing! Buy me". It's since been one of my favorites.
The actual text on the CD (Columbia CK45409) paper insert is:
"This CD contains previously recorded material, except: "This ain't my first rodeo".
"All songs have been newly recorded, except:
"Is it raining at your house", from the Columbia release "Chisled in Stone".
Players' credits on the re-recordings are:
Ron Oates (Keyboards), Lonnie Wilson (Drum),
Bob Wray (Bass), Brent Mason, Tim Mensy (Electric Guitar), Bill Hullett, Tim Mensy (Acoustic Guitar), Jim Vest (Steel Guitar).
Release date on this one was 1990.
I have a Hag greatest hits CD with "I think I'll just stay here and drink", and a "Legends of Guitar, Country" CD commissioned by Guitar Player Magazine with the same cut, but obviously a newer take. The newer version is much better, hands-down in every respect of performance, arraingement, and sound quality.
This might be another reason for re-cutting tunes for re-release...I helped out on a project about five years ago, to get two 1962 Howard Roberts jazz guitar LP's re-issued on CD. I won't mention the label who owns the masters, but believe me, they made it so much like pulling teeth that had Howard still been alive, we would have much preffered re-recording the tracks (with as many original musicians as possible) to suffering the three years of head butting and label indifference, made more excruciating by the bean counters over DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS, on their petty, shameless insistence that someone [other than they] underwrite the cost of the project. The first figure they tabled was $350,000. I don't know how the deal was settled, but informed experts I know who do top quality re-mastering on old material say that with top-notch remastering (to their credit, this was done by the label, with an A+ grade) and the cost of a small minimum "pressing" lot...maybe $60K or so, plus or minus overhead and profit, would have been reasonable. The label owns the tapes, Howard was contracted to them as an employee staff musician & arrainger, so there's just publishing to pay on a few old standards recorded on the records. Perhaps the eventual session players' union mechanical re-use fees for commercial use (billed back to broadcasters, muzak, etc. through ASCAP/BMI anyway)?
So, it just might be more convenient to "do it from the grave"!

[This message was edited by Rich Paton on 21 October 2001 at 09:50 PM.]

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

To quote the words of the late Dave Gardner...

"You can't do anything again. Once it's done...it's gone! You can only do something similar".

Luckily, someone had sympathy for me, and made me a CD of Merle's original recordings of his greatest hits.

Forum Index > Music	Goto page Previous 1, 2	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: