1. A&M Corner can now be found on Instagram! Follow us on our new account at @a.m.corner .
    You may also follow us on Twitter: @amcorner.
  2. We have received word that UMe is aware of the problem with the Carpenters vinyl releases, both the box sets and the individual LPs, and has offered a solution. To receive a replacement, send a proof of purchase to UMGCustomerSupport@umusic.com. UMe prefers email, but those who prefer phone contact may call 1-800-288-5942 to speak to Customer Support.

50th The Complete Carpenters Recording Resource

Discussion in 'A Small Circle of Friends: The Music Forum' started by Rudy, Jun 14, 2012.

  1. GaryAlan

    GaryAlan Well-Known Member

    Along with John's observation/question above, I respectfully add my own query:

    That reminds me a few notes I have forgotten about some Liner Note information :
    Carpenters Perform Carpenter
    I Need To Be In Love "remixed in 1991"
    Goodbye To Love "Additional recording and remix done in 1985"

    The dates--here, in bold--differ from the Notes in the Carpenters Resource , under this titled CD.
    Of course, there could be a typo somewhere.
  2. I'll check into it when I get time...probably tomorrow.
  3. Chris May

    Chris May Resident 'Carpenterologist' Moderator

    Thanks for pointing that out John. I'm not sure why I had a brain lapse on that, as the entire show was recorded in March of '70. I know The Youngbloods recorded it in '66, so perhaps I'd confused dates and somewhere along the line came up with '68 in my head! I'll talk with @Harry and get that corrected.
  4. Chris May likes this.
  5. Chris May

    Chris May Resident 'Carpenterologist' Moderator

    Always on top of things...LOVE it!! :-P
  6. Read Chris May's explanation on the Resource page. In putting together the Resource, we noted that there are several instances where someone refers to a 1990 remix or a 1991 remix. If there are indeed two different mixes in 90 and 91, then even trained ears cannot hear the difference. The fact is, there was a giant set of remixing sessions around the time of FROM THE TOP and the Karaoke discs in Japan, and they took place over that two-year period. Some were done and in the can and awaited release on a future compilation, so there could be a discrepancy between the remixing date and the release date. This song has many references to a 90 remix and as many to a 91 remix, and we believe they are all the same, thus giving benefit of the doubt to 1990.

    There are a couple of ways to distinguish the 1985 remix from the 1991 remix of "Goodbye To Love". The first is the placement of the oboe in the stereo mix, which is more centered in 1985 and shifts slightly farther right in 1991. Gary, I realize that doesn't help you much, but there's another tip that might. On the phrase "...day love is forgotten...", there's a second backing vocal by Karen - almost a doubled lead on that phrase in the 1985 remix. In 1991, that doubling is removed.

    So we'll stand by the CARPENTERS PERFORM CARPENTER remix of "Goodbye To Love" being the 1991 remix. However, in doing this research, I've uncovered that one of our other compilations for this song was in the wrong remix year. We had ANTHOLOGY (97) listed as the '85 remix, when in fact it's the '91 remix. So that's been fixed, anyway.

    ...keeping it accurate, online...
    GaryAlan likes this.
  7. GaryAlan

    GaryAlan Well-Known Member

    Much Thanks, Harry,
    for the excellent delineations of those mixes for me.
    As I am relying primarily on those printed Liner Notes, I realize they may very well lead me astray !
    And, as my hearing is not all that it should be, I appreciate your pointing out the other audio-ways
    in which I can "hear" , and discriminate between, the differences in the mixes.
  8. Chris May

    Chris May Resident 'Carpenterologist' Moderator

    Ditto that. Another important note for folks to take into account, especially given the day and age we're living with digital is as follows.

    When a mastering engineer creates the computerized playlist for the master disc, it's at his discretion to accurately (or inaccurately) code in the correct title - and more so in this case, particular mix date reference. If their info gets skewed even in the slightest, it gets catalogued incorrectly with regard to that particular album/release/compilation. iTunes is a great example of this where you see slight discrepancies in mix date(s)/year(s).

    Where there has been additional confusion is, for instance with the Christmas stuff. Time Life put out that set in '92. The remixes that were included there have been widely documented as "'92 remix", when in reality, those tracks were likely remixed in '90- '91. Listen to any of the Christmas remixes on From The Top, then go listen to Time Life and you'll hear exactly what I'm talking about. The Christmas masters were most likely all remixed at the same time, however surfacing piecemeal over a several-year span to create the compilation of remixes we have now.

    By '96 when the Christmas Collection came out, the entire Christmas Portrait album was heard in remixed form, with the exception of Merry Christmas Darling. Go to the Time Life set and you'll hear the remixed version of that song, with additional recording (piano). Take that rare remix and replace the original '78 mix on Christmas Collection, and you'll have the entire album remixed, sonically threaded together as if one complete mixing/remix session.
    GaryAlan likes this.
  9. GaryAlan

    GaryAlan Well-Known Member

    Thanks, Chris May and Harry for the elaboration.

    Well, I do have a question:
    Let's suppose that one person "hears" a difference which another person does not "hear".
    How would one ascertain whether those differences are from a new mix, or, better technology ?
    Some of the subtleties on some of the mixes are difficult to ascertain.
    Usually I defer to the printed documentation which originated with the recording,
    i.e., Liner Notes to an album. This, I see, is fraught with difficulty.
    However, as is now evident to me, not all of those Liner Notes are accurate or reliable.
    As I see on All I Can Do, Richard added "echo" in 1990....does that make this recording a 1990 "mix " ?

    I suppose my real question is exactly what constitutes a re-mix, or a "new" mix, altogether ?

    Is 1978's Merry Christmas Darling , utilizing Karen's re-recorded 1978 vocals placed over an-already-existing 1970 instrumental mix ?
    Or, did they re-record every instrument anew for the 1978 vocals ?
    Or, did they use some instrumentation (from 1970) and re-record (in 1978) other instruments ?
    And, in some sense, is not every analog recording--- when remixed for digital--- considered a "new" mix ?

    Yes, folks, I am confused !
  10. Chris May

    Chris May Resident 'Carpenterologist' Moderator

    Some of the difficulties in hearing the subtlety in a mix could be something as simple as slight hearing loss in one ear over another, frequency loss (inability to delineate or hear certain tones/overtones), or a lack of ability to hear the difference in the mix altogether. It really is that simple sometimes. A great example of this is with the remix of Desperado. The only reason the song got a remix is because of some upper harmonic distortion on Tommy's harmonica track that drove Richard crazy. Is there THAT big of a difference between the original and the remix? No, but it's "cleaner".

    As far as All I Can Do, it's not a remix because the copy Richard used was a mix transfer. All he did was add echo to an existing mix for effect.
    To help bring some clarity in answering your question, vocals aren't "placed over an existing mix" in the way we think of copy/pasting today in the digital era. In '78, I believe the original 16 track master of Merry Christmas Darling was transferred over in its entirety to 24 track tape, since that's what they were working with at the time. At that point, there became 8 blank tracks on the new master to add Karen's new lead vocal. This is how this would have been done. So Karen's original lead is still contained somewhere on the tape, however muted during the playback, replaced by Karen's new and updated lead. And yes, a whole new and fresh remix to boot.
    GaryAlan likes this.
  11. John Tkacik

    John Tkacik Active Member

    I was reading the information regarding the different versions of the song "I Won't Last A Day Without You" and I am slightly confused. In my thinking, the original LP version should be "version 1.0" and not "sped up". This was the first version of the song to be released to the public. Maybe the version found on the Remastered Classics CD could be described as a "slower" ( version 2.0) of the LP release to be chronologically correct.

    So apparently, the singles version released in the US in 1974 was different (sped up) from the version released in Japan from what I am reading?
  12. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. What I can say is that this particular song became the genesis of the Resource, way back years ago. Somehow the subject of the song and it being sped-up or slow and I recall doing an early-morning shootout of every version I had. Plopping CDs into players and comparing them was the only way I could accomplish that task back then, and it developed into a chart that I posted here. I can't find the original one, but there was a repeat of it in another thread back in 2011:

    Singles on CD?? »

    When it came time to do the Resource, I used similar verbiage and verified all of my earlier findings.
    The original album version is listed as "Original Album Mix" and it occurs on the A SONG FOR YOU CD (Remastered Classic).

    OK, NOW I see what you're getting at. The original LP had the sped-up version - and I believe I listed it that way because it actually IS sped up. The normal speed version - Karen's normal pitch - should be the slower one, which is why Richard "fixed" the original LP when it came to the Remastered Classic. So it made sense to me to break these out into "fast" and "slow". It's all further compounded by the fact that there's a single mix and an album mix and some are fast and some are slow.
  13. John Tkacik

    John Tkacik Active Member

    I happened to notice last night that the Resource commentary about the song "For All We Know" says that it peaked on the Billboard Chart during the week of February 6. I have always thought that it made it's first appearance in the Top 40 the following week of February 13th (from a 1986 edition of Joel Whitburn's Billboard Top 40). I don't have any knowledge of when it did peak at #3.
  14. According to this page: 1971: All Charts »

    ...the song didn't reach #3 until March 13, 1971, but I don't know where that site gets its numbers. Perhaps Chris May has more details.
    John Tkacik likes this.
  15. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    For All We Know reached #3 on Billboard Hot 100 on March 13, 1971. I just looked it up on Billboard to confirm.

    Some additional info, this song debut on Billboard Spotlight singles in a short single review on Jan 30, 1971
    The Feb 06 1971 issue featured a full page promo ad and it made it's first week chart at #87 on the Billboard Hot 100
    John Tkacik likes this.
  16. Thanks Rick. I believe that the Whitburn books list the date of first appearance on the chart rather than the week of peak positioning.
  17. adam

    adam Active Member

    Just to mention Carpenters performed For all we know on the Andy williams show on February 13th 1971.
  18. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    I found what might be an error in the Resource site in my quest of needle dropping my original LP’s. If you go to the song “You” it states there are 2 different original album versions, the original and a slightly sped up version. I can immediately tell that the Remastered classics Cd and the By Request Cd both sound the same (actually has a slower beat to start and even Karen’s vocals sound slower.

    My 80’s Cd and my Original LP both sound like the slightly sped up version. It also matches to the Sweet Memory Cd. These 3 versions all feel like they have a slightly faster tempo and one that I prefer listening to. I really don’t like the slower version from the remastered classic and by request.
  19. GaryAlan

    GaryAlan Well-Known Member

    Along those same lines, as Richard states in an interview with Wink Martindale,
    the Single for
    All You Get From Love Is A Love Song is "sped-up," in contrast
    to the song as heard on the Passage LP cut (where it is "not sped up").
    As Richard says there, "same song, just sped up for the single."

    My question on these types of things is:
    Is it not the exact same "mix" ?
    In other words, regardless of whether the song is sped-up, or not,
    is it not the same exact "mix" used for both ?
  20. So, help me out. What's wrong in the Resource?

    Speeding things up is not technically a new "mix". I should probably amend that terminology.
  21. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    I wasn't talking about mixes rather album versions.

    The song You
    The LP and Remastered Classic CD are 2 different versions. The resource site says there the same.
  22. OK, I got it now. You're right. The original LP has the faster version, and so does the old A&M CD from the '80s, but the Remastered Classic is slowed down. I've adjusted the Resource.

    My "mix" comment was for GaryAlan just below yours.

    Thanks for spotting that. It just goes to prove that nothing is written in stone when it comes to Carpenters song versions.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)